ESPN: In letter, Pac-12's George Kliavkoff cites 'significant' financial, mental health concerns on UCLA move to Big Ten

Donate To GopherHole
USAF said:
This is the kind of lack of intellect I would expect from right wingnuts.
Click to expand...
Being confused by statements that have absolutely nothing to do with my comment is a lack of intellect! Got it! Thanks for setting me straight!

I think any reasonable person agrees there's a crisis of leadership on the west coast and California in particular. If you think people who think like the PAC12 commissioner are rational, you're in the minority.
 

An alternative to having to “replace” UCLA (eg with Colorado, Oregon, etc) is just stay at 15 with only adding USC.

15 teams 9 conf games, 4 locked in rivalries every year, means you cycle through the remaining 10 teams every 2 years with the remaining 5 conf games.

Probably keeps the $$ per school per year the same, instead of adding another mouth to feed just to have even number of members.
 

Gophers7NatTitlesBadgers0 said:
I think any reasonable person agrees there's a crisis of leadership on the west coast and California in particular. If you think people who think like the PAC12 commissioner are rational, you're in the minority.
Click to expand...
"Any reasonable person?"

Do tell.
 

Gophers_4life said:
An alternative to having to “replace” UCLA (eg with Colorado, Oregon, etc) is just stay at 15 with only adding USC.

15 teams 9 conf games, 4 locked in rivalries every year, means you cycle through the remaining 10 teams every 2 years with the remaining 5 conf games.

Probably keeps the $$ per school per year the same, instead of adding another mouth to feed just to have even number of members.
Click to expand...
Probably requires USC to find a rivalry week partner themselves for years in which they don't play Notre Dame.
 



Gophers_4life said:
An alternative to having to “replace” UCLA (eg with Colorado, Oregon, etc) is just stay at 15 with only adding USC.

15 teams 9 conf games, 4 locked in rivalries every year, means you cycle through the remaining 10 teams every 2 years with the remaining 5 conf games.

Probably keeps the $$ per school per year the same, instead of adding another mouth to feed just to have even number of members.
Click to expand...
I just don't think they would leave it like that. They can easily fill with one more, just a matter of whom. Keep in mind they want more inventory to cover the new contract.
 


Ope3 said:
They potentially have to deal with it already in Boulder, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Pullman and even potentially in Eugene or Corvallis.

No biggie, IMO. Heck, even the Bay Area can be chilly in November.
Click to expand...

Those places are all still quite a bit milder than Minneapolis, especially near the Pacific coast. Boulder would be the most comparable, but their November is more like our October.

Just looking at last November, Boulder's coldest high was 51. Minneapolis' was 26 and had 10 days where it didn't get out of the 20s and 30s. And both cities were above average temperatures overall for the month mainly due to the warm start as you mentioned earlier.
 

I think there is something to the acclimatization argument but with some warm up/exercise the body adapts. It’s the wind chill/sub zero temps where things get interesting. Heat is much worse IMHO, and harder to adapt to.

Both teams will be suffering on a windy cold November morning, pretty much equally. Shady side or sunny side was a thing for awhile.
 



Pompous Elitist said:
I think there is something to the acclimatization argument but with some warm up/exercise the body adapts. It’s the wind chill/sub zero temps where things get interesting. Heat is much worse IMHO, and harder to adapt to.

Both teams will be suffering on a windy cold November morning, pretty much equally. Shady side or sunny side was a thing for awhile.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I would guess even Bruin or Trojan players would rather play a game with the temp in mid 30s than high 80s or warmer (all other factors equal).

If the regular season stretches or 1st Round BCS playoff games on home sites go into December, then weather be an issue.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
I think there is something to the acclimatization argument but with some warm up/exercise the body adapts. It’s the wind chill/sub zero temps where things get interesting. Heat is much worse IMHO, and harder to adapt to.

Both teams will be suffering on a windy cold November morning, pretty much equally. Shady side or sunny side was a thing for awhile.
Click to expand...
I disagree but I think it's more psychological than it is physiological. I've even seen Big Ten teams (where their climate isn't drastically different like California's) come here and look thoroughly discouraged to be playing in frigid weather. I think our cold weather will be playing head games with them.
 

Ope3 said:
I have been to 4 UCLA games and a boxing match at the Rose Bowl. Never had a problem with the view, even near the top/corners, even when it's full. I am average height, at best.

Great place to see a game. My only issue is traffic nightmare getting out of the place.
Click to expand...
I guess I wasn't totally convinced of the flat stadium theory anyway.
 

Word said:
I disagree but I think it's more psychological than it is physiological. I've even seen Big Ten teams (where their climate isn't drastically different like California's) come here and look thoroughly discouraged to be playing in frigid weather. I think our cold weather will be playing head games with them.
Click to expand...
I will be curious if they make the West Coast teams play at 11am Central/Noon Eastern which would be 9am Pacific. That to me would have a greater potential impact then playing in games in cool temps.

Seems like it would be foolish, since this is all about TV and would be harder to get eyeballs on the games that early.
 



Slight political comment (from a pretty liberal guy): the whole climate thing is absolutely grasping at straws. Period. End of story. It's not like their teams are taking solar powered trains up to Seattle and Eugene.

I was also extremely surprised to see that the salaries at UCLA are that much lower than in the B1G. I was having a conversation last Friday at a neighborhood get together with an Iowa graduate/fan who made some comment about how much tougher the league will be with USC/UCLA. I said that yes, USC was and could again be a major power, but UCLA will be like adding another Indiana or Illinois. They aren't a major program at this point. They don't even have a 100 yard practice field. They play 26 miles away from campus (and in LA traffic, that's a hike).

If they moved to SoFi, maybe that would help, but an on-campus stadium, where they control revenue etc. would be the best fit for them. I was going to suggest they play in Carson, where the Chargers played in the interim, but they'd be a sub-tenant to the MLS team, so that probably wouldn't work either.
 

Gophers_4life said:
The bolded is just not correct.

It has already been confirmed by legal counsel that the UC Regents do indeed hold legal authority, according to state law and the UC bylaws, to block UCLA's move to the Big Ten, if they choose to do that.

The question is really if they would "dare" choose to do that.
Click to expand...
Much like one has the legal authority to cut their own nose off to spite their own face.
 

mngolf said:
I think he's seen the low numbers that networks are offering the PAC12 for their new deal and has become desperate. And if for some bizarre reason UCLA ended up staying then Oregon/Wash would replace them in 2 seconds. He's f'd either way.
Click to expand...
UCLA out and Stanford in as replacement; add Washington and Oregon. Put Nebraska in new West Division. Thank you.
 

disco said:
Slight political comment (from a pretty liberal guy): the whole climate thing is absolutely grasping at straws. Period. End of story. It's not like their teams are taking solar powered trains up to Seattle and Eugene.

I was also extremely surprised to see that the salaries at UCLA are that much lower than in the B1G. I was having a conversation last Friday at a neighborhood get together with an Iowa graduate/fan who made some comment about how much tougher the league will be with USC/UCLA. I said that yes, USC was and could again be a major power, but UCLA will be like adding another Indiana or Illinois. They aren't a major program at this point. They don't even have a 100 yard practice field. They play 26 miles away from campus (and in LA traffic, that's a hike).

If they moved to SoFi, maybe that would help, but an on-campus stadium, where they control revenue etc. would be the best fit for them. I was going to suggest they play in Carson, where the Chargers played in the interim, but they'd be a sub-tenant to the MLS team, so that probably wouldn't work either.
Click to expand...
Very well written and I personally didn't see anything political (from a conservative guy).
 

Ope3 said:
Agreed. I would guess even Bruin or Trojan players would rather play a game with the temp in mid 30s than high 80s or warmer (all other factors equal).

If the regular season stretches or 1st Round BCS playoff games on home sites go into December, then weather be an issue.
Click to expand...

You think people would rather spend time outside on a 30º day over an 80º day?
 

Gophers_4life said:
The bolded is just not correct.

It has already been confirmed by legal counsel that the UC Regents do indeed hold legal authority, according to state law and the UC bylaws, to block UCLA's move to the Big Ten, if they choose to do that.

The question is really if they would "dare" choose to do that.
Click to expand...
Or can it be that the UC Regents are trying to leverage the Big Ten to take Cal?
 




disco said:
Slight political comment (from a pretty liberal guy): the whole climate thing is absolutely grasping at straws. Period. End of story. It's not like their teams are taking solar powered trains up to Seattle and Eugene.

I was also extremely surprised to see that the salaries at UCLA are that much lower than in the B1G. I was having a conversation last Friday at a neighborhood get together with an Iowa graduate/fan who made some comment about how much tougher the league will be with USC/UCLA. I said that yes, USC was and could again be a major power, but UCLA will be like adding another Indiana or Illinois. They aren't a major program at this point. They don't even have a 100 yard practice field. They play 26 miles away from campus (and in LA traffic, that's a hike).

If they moved to SoFi, maybe that would help, but an on-campus stadium, where they control revenue etc. would be the best fit for them. I was going to suggest they play in Carson, where the Chargers played in the interim, but they'd be a sub-tenant to the MLS team, so that probably wouldn't work either.
Click to expand...
And when you factor in the cost of living in California -- that is not a political statement, just fact -- they're that much worse.
 

Ski U Mah Gopher said:
Or can it be that the UC Regents are trying to leverage the Big Ten to take Cal?
Click to expand...
Of course.

I think that was the original goal, and maybe they're still trying.

But here's the thing: I don't think there's a chance in hell that the Big Ten and its TV partners didn't already do all the due diligence on what the TV contract numbers would look like for all various sorts of permutations of adding addition PAC members. All the way from just merging the two conferences, and likely down to just adding USC.

It would be absolutely in all parties interest to have done that.


And so, they could've added any other PAC schools at the time they announced USC & UCLA. But didn't.

That to me says that none of the others moved the needle like USC did, to the point where it was "the answer is yes, right now!"


They're trying to wait out Notre Dame. That's the real major fish left in the pond, save for ACC schools that are locked away for more years.
 

Goldmember said:
Much like one has the legal authority to cut their own nose off to spite their own face.
Click to expand...
Well .... yeah!

You could easily end up being correct, that UCLA is in the conf come 2024. I just don't think it's a zero percent chance, for the reason of the legal authority of the UC regents. That's all I'm sayin
:cool:
 

mngolf said:
I just don't think they would leave it like that. They can easily fill with one more, just a matter of whom. Keep in mind they want more inventory to cover the new contract.
Click to expand...
Inventory is a valid point. For sure.

It would be up to the TV partners. Unquestionably, the absolute total value of the TV contract would decrease, because it would only be for 15 teams worth instead of 16 teams worth. As you're saying.

I'm just saying that the worth per school would be the same or similar, because you're only dividing by 15 instead of 16.


But at the end of the day, it's what the TV partners agree to pay for, that matters.
 

noamfromm said:
Probably requires USC to find a rivalry week partner themselves for years in which they don't play Notre Dame.
Click to expand...
True but PAC would also have an odd number at 11, so would think that the California schools would continue to do the scheduling dance that they all do in order to make room on the schedule for:
USC-Notre Dame, Stanford-Notre Dame, USC-UCLA, Cal-Stanford, USC-Stanford, Cal-UCLA.
 

U2Gopher said:
I’m not going to say your wrong, but I don’t think this is a slam dunk that the regents can stop this. Sure, an attorney that represents the regents claims they have the power to do so, but I’ve read other articles that were linked from Cal and UCLA forums which reference other attorneys and school sources which say the regents don’t have much ground to stand on to stop this. If the regents have the stomach to challenge this, a court will ultimately decide who has the most standing.

One thing I do find interesting, and I’m not saying it’s a fact, is that I keep reading that if UCLA does leave without Cal, that UCLA may be forced to give some of the money earned from the Big10 to Cal to limit the financial damage they suffer from UCLA leaving the PAC-12. Seems ludicrous to me but every time I’ve read that, I see nothing from anyone disputing that the regents could actually take that step. Such a move though would seem to fit right in with the state of California. Now I don’t know what percentage of dollars they could/would be forced to give Cal, but if it’s as much as half, then why would this move to the Big10 be worth it to UCLA, given the increased costs that are going to come with joining the Big10? It’s probably all destined for court.

I wouldn’t be broken up if UCLA didn’t come. I think I’d rather have Utah, Oregon or Washington.
Click to expand...
This is the thing in question: https://policy.ucop.edu/_files/da/da1058.html

Note the last bullet point.

A lawyer can easily argue it either way. "It clearly says athletic agreements!" But on the other hand, "It clearly says 'except coaching contracts'. So you're telling me that the school switching its entire conference, for all sports, coaches, and student-athletes, is something that the Regents wouldn't care about, but they do care about reviewing and approving coaching contracts?? Come on!"


Have heard a similar thing you're talking about in the 2nd paragraph. I would call that the "UC regents lost the fight, but stabbed them in the eye on the way down" scenario.


Assuming Stanford won't come without Notre Dame, then I'd take Washington of the remaining, if forced to replace UCLA.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom