USC and UCLA Planning to join BIG TEN.

[Gophers_4life]

Gophers Badgers game last year helped to determine who would win the West, so that also probably boosted interest in tuning in a bit?

 

[GopherFanatic19]

What do you expect him to say? He's chair of the UC system regents.

I expect him to say “sounds great for UCLA”! I have bigger things to worry about, like destroying California in every way imaginable!

 

[PMWinSTP]

Of course Calis Dictator Newsom is crying, his state is completely burning out of control, yet this is a focus.

Wrong board.

 

[PMWinSTP]

I expect him to say “sounds great for UCLA”! I have bigger things to worry about, like destroying California in every way imaginable!

Again, wrong board.

 

[Gophers_4life]

For fun: put the 16 Big Ten teams (including USC and UCLA or Stan, whichever ends up coming) to four pods such that the maximum number of major rivalries are preserved just from pod games.


Neb Iowa Minn Wisc
Pur IU ILL NW
Mich MSU OSU Rut
PSU Mary USC UCLA/Stan

Schedule format: play everyone in your pod (3 games), play 2 teams from the other 3 pods per year (6 games).

Rivalries not satisfied just from pod games (ranked by number of times played) according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Big_Ten_Conference_football_rivalry_games :
LBJ (104)
Illibuck (103)
George Jewett (75)
Old Brass Spittoon (66)
OSU-Purdue (58)
Gov Victory Bell (14)
(Note: USC-Stan have met 100 times, and USC-UCLA have met 91 times, either would be preserved)

Conclusion: other than the Bell, which no one cares about, all the others listed above are very lopsided, to the point where I don't think anyone would object if they were only played every other year instead of every year.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Just read this, which is referring to the Regents of the University of California:

Board of Regents Bylaw 22 defines what authorities are delegated to the campus presidents and what authorities are reserved by the Board. One of the authorities reserved by the Board reads:

"Approving alliances and affiliations involving University financial commitments, use of the University’s name, research resources, and the University’s reputation, within parameters specified by Committee Charter or Regents Policy"


So ..... yeah, this actually could get interesting.

 

[Pete smith]

Just read this, which is referring to the Regents of the University of California:

Board of Regents Bylaw 22 defines what authorities are delegated to the campus presidents and what authorities are reserved by the Board. One of the authorities reserved by the Board reads:

"Approving alliances and affiliations involving University financial commitments, use of the University’s name, research resources, and the University’s reputation, within parameters specified by Committee Charter or Regents Policy"


So ..... yeah, this actually could get interesting.

Especially interesting in that the idiot Governor has publicly stated that he wasn’t notified in the conference (UCLA) change. As the “head” regent he will void the change at the first chance he gets. Perhaps even the next Regents meeting. So B1G, don’t count your chickens yet.

 

[nitramnaed]

Especially interesting in that the idiot Governor has publicly stated that he wasn’t notified in the conference (UCLA) change. As the “head” regent he will void the change at the first chance he gets. Perhaps even the next Regents meeting. So B1G, don’t count your chickens yet.

So, he's an idiot because he might stick up for what's best for the California system over the B1G?

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Board of Regents Bylaw 22 defines what authorities are delegated to the campus presidents and what authorities are reserved by the Board. One of the authorities reserved by the Board reads:

"Approving alliances and affiliations involving University financial commitments, use of the University’s name, research resources, and the University’s reputation, within parameters specified by Committee Charter or Regents Policy"


So ..... yeah, this actually could get interesting.

The move will help UCLA (strictly financially), and hurt Cal. Forcing UCLA to remain in the USC-less PAC-12 will hurt the revenue and future athletic prospects and perhaps offerings of both which would make many faculty overjoyed. Cal owes $450M on a new sports complex and none of their Olympic or women’s sports are profitable even under the current arrangement.

I smell some politicking and damage control by Newsom, who could certainly broker revenue sharing amongst the flagship schools or from the state coffers to debt slave Cal - coffers which are currently overflowing enough to issue billions in stimulus and health insurance to undocumented residents (topic for another board). Regarding the bolded have to chuckle a little bit; UC has done a fine job on themselves ( again, for a different board).




It doesn’t really mean that UCLA is in any danger of its Big Ten move getting blocked. The UC Regents has gone on record several times that they have no such power.

A spokesperson for the UC Office of the President said the regents had no authority to prevent UCLA’s move, which became official June 30:
“There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President.”

However, there is a lot more complexity the Regents probably didn’t further evaluate among first glance, and very messy state and political litigation that could be in the works if this deal goes as planned.

(It should be currently noted that UC System president Michael Drake is a Stanford grad, and was the president at Ohio State from 2014-20. There is only one UC Berkeley graduate among the 14 appointed regents.)

Namely, UCLA’s gain is Cal’s loss. A financial boon for the Bruins in Westwood cascades into a financial boondogle. More from Wilner’s article about the lack of leadership between Cal and Regents regarding the intentions of USC and UCLA.

A source close to Cal athletics said chancellor Carol Christ was “blindsided” by the news of UCLA’s departure.
Largely because their athletic department supports 30 sports teams — one of the highest totals in the country — the Bears typically run a significant deficit. Only football and men’s basketball are profitable.
In fact, the athletic department receives approximately $25 million annually from central campus to fund operations.

From Cal’s side, it was the most stunning aspect of the news the past two weeks. More from ESPN.

There was more surprise, according to sources, that UCLA was able to depart considering its close relationship with Cal as part of the University of California system. Cal and UCLA are the highest-profile schools in the system, and both regularly rank among the nation's best public universities.
"The mystery to me is how the regents allowed UCLA to go and leave Cal ... wounded," one source said. "This is not good for Cal or anybody else in the Pac-10."

Here is UCLA’s response to how the Regents were informed:

“UCLA leadership informed President Drake that discussions between UCLA and the Big Ten were occurring but he was not involved at all in those discussions or in any negotiations. UCLA remains best positioned to answer your questions as decisions related to athletics are formulated and executed at the campus-level.”

Regardless of the impact for UCLA on the campus-level, it’s a public institution for the state of California, and its departure from the Pac-12 has the potential to damage THE public institution in the state up north.

Any revenues or benefits the Bruins enjoy and could reap for the UC system get cancelled out by the significant damage the athletic department would face if they were stuck in a diminished Pac-10 conference facing significant revenue cuts. Cal has an enormous stadium debt to forgive and repayments are hitting overdrive in the coming decades.

Without USC and UCLA providing a link to the massive Los Angeles media market, the Pac-12’s revenue could be chopped by 40-to-50 percent starting in the 2024-25 academic year.
As a result, the Bears could experience a revenue reduction of at least $10 million annually, thereby jeopardizing their ability to support 28 Olympic and women’s sports (none of them are profitable).

The flagship university of the state of the West facing nine figure debt can become a major state political problem if things aren’t ironed out quickly. I imagine the Regents want to explore all options for a satisfactory solution before this issue moves past the university stage and into the public eye.

UC Regents to address UCLA to the Big Ten move, particularly its financial impact on Cal

Is there a legal recourse to blocking UCLA's Big Ten move?

writeforcalifornia.com

 

[PMWinSTP]

The move will help UCLA (strictly financially), and hurt Cal. Forcing UCLA to remain in the USC-less PAC-12 will hurt the revenue and future athletic prospects and perhaps offerings of both which would make many faculty overjoyed. I smell some politicking and damage control by Newsom, who could certainly broker revenue sharing amongst the flagship schools or from the state coffers to debt slave Cal - coffers which are currently overflowing enough to issue billions in stimulus and health insurance to undocumented residents (topic for another board) . Regarding the bolded have to chuckle a little bit; UC has done a fine job on themselves ( again, for a different board).




It doesn’t really mean that UCLA is in any danger of its Big Ten move getting blocked. The UC Regents has gone on record several times that they have no such power.


However, there is a lot more complexity the Regents probably didn’t further evaluate among first glance, and very messy state and political litigation that could be in the works if this deal goes as planned.

(It should be currently noted that UC System president Michael Drake is a Stanford grad, and was the president at Ohio State from 2014-20. There is only one UC Berkeley graduate among the 14 appointed regents.)

Namely, UCLA’s gain is Cal’s loss. A financial boon for the Bruins in Westwood cascades into a financial boondogle. More from Wilner’s article about the lack of leadership between Cal and Regents regarding the intentions of USC and UCLA.


From Cal’s side, it was the most stunning aspect of the news the past two weeks. More from ESPN.


Here is UCLA’s response to how the Regents were informed:


Regardless of the impact for UCLA on the campus-level, it’s a public institution for the state of California, and its departure from the Pac-12 has the potential to damage THE public institution in the state up north.

Any revenues or benefits the Bruins enjoy and could reap for the UC system get cancelled out by the significant damage the athletic department would face if they were stuck in a diminished Pac-10 conference facing significant revenue cuts. Cal has an enormous stadium debt to forgive and repayments are hitting overdrive in the coming decades.


The flagship university of the state of the West facing nine figure debt can become a major state political problem if things aren’t ironed out quickly. I imagine the Regents want to explore all options for a satisfactory solution before this issue moves past the university stage and into the public eye.

UC Regents to address UCLA to the Big Ten move, particularly its financial impact on Cal

Is there a legal recourse to blocking UCLA's Big Ten move?

writeforcalifornia.com

Cal will be coming, with Stanford, IMHO.

 

[nitramnaed]

The flagship university of the state of the West facing nine figure debt can become a major state political problem if things aren’t ironed out quickly. I imagine the Regents want to explore all options for a satisfactory solution before this issue moves past the university stage and into the public eye.

UC Regents to address UCLA to the Big Ten move, particularly its financial impact on Cal

Is there a legal recourse to blocking UCLA's Big Ten move?

writeforcalifornia.com

This is a blog post. Means nothing more than what I, or anyone else, post here.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

This is a blog post. Means nothing more than what I, or anyone else, post here.

A blog post with, among other interesting items, a linked statement from the UC board of regents spokesperson.

 

[Gophers_4life]

The move will help UCLA (strictly financially), and hurt Cal. Forcing UCLA to remain in the USC-less PAC-12 will hurt the revenue and future athletic prospects and perhaps offerings of both which would make many faculty overjoyed. Cal owes $450M on a new sports complex and none of their Olympic or women’s sports are profitable even under the current arrangement.

I smell some politicking and damage control by Newsom, who could certainly broker revenue sharing amongst the flagship schools or from the state coffers to debt slave Cal - coffers which are currently overflowing enough to issue billions in stimulus and health insurance to undocumented residents (topic for another board). Regarding the bolded have to chuckle a little bit; UC has done a fine job on themselves ( again, for a different board).




It doesn’t really mean that UCLA is in any danger of its Big Ten move getting blocked. The UC Regents has gone on record several times that they have no such power.


However, there is a lot more complexity the Regents probably didn’t further evaluate among first glance, and very messy state and political litigation that could be in the works if this deal goes as planned.

(It should be currently noted that UC System president Michael Drake is a Stanford grad, and was the president at Ohio State from 2014-20. There is only one UC Berkeley graduate among the 14 appointed regents.)

Namely, UCLA’s gain is Cal’s loss. A financial boon for the Bruins in Westwood cascades into a financial boondogle. More from Wilner’s article about the lack of leadership between Cal and Regents regarding the intentions of USC and UCLA.


From Cal’s side, it was the most stunning aspect of the news the past two weeks. More from ESPN.


Here is UCLA’s response to how the Regents were informed:


Regardless of the impact for UCLA on the campus-level, it’s a public institution for the state of California, and its departure from the Pac-12 has the potential to damage THE public institution in the state up north.

Any revenues or benefits the Bruins enjoy and could reap for the UC system get cancelled out by the significant damage the athletic department would face if they were stuck in a diminished Pac-10 conference facing significant revenue cuts. Cal has an enormous stadium debt to forgive and repayments are hitting overdrive in the coming decades.


The flagship university of the state of the West facing nine figure debt can become a major state political problem if things aren’t ironed out quickly. I imagine the Regents want to explore all options for a satisfactory solution before this issue moves past the university stage and into the public eye.

UC Regents to address UCLA to the Big Ten move, particularly its financial impact on Cal

Is there a legal recourse to blocking UCLA's Big Ten move?

writeforcalifornia.com

Thanks a lot for the link and quotes.

Why do I get the feeling that what Drake said here is the truth ....... and yet, "somehow" it suddenly becomes the case that Drake was "mistaken"? Again, the bylaw I cited clearly gives the Regents quite a large leeway to argue that, indeed, they should get to have the ultimate authority to approve or deny UCLA's invitation, if they want to.

Drake may have thought "good for you guys! Helps solve some debt issues in your athletic dept. Knock yourself out!" personally .... without "bothering" to check how the Regents felt, in particular the Queen Elizabeth of the Regents, Newsom.

 

[Gophers_4life]

I still wonder if it isn't a possible ploy to force the Big Ten to offer all four (PAC) California schools, rather than just the two LA schools.

All or none (of the publics). To which I (speaking for myself) easily would say: "well you know what, you have two very nice privates, sir".

 

[mngolf]

If it is a ploy, if will fail and just hurt UCLA in the process.

 

[CentralGopher]

California Gov. Gavin Newsom: UCLA 'must clearly explain' move from Pac-12 to Big Ten

UCLA's looming move to the Big Ten is coming with political headwind in California

www.cbssports.com

 

[Dave H]

So glad we could discuss this without bringing politics into it...

 

[Unregistered User]

 

[GopherFanatic19]

I’d love if they voted against this, typical woke / liberal way, destroy anything that is good!

My guess Washington would replace UCLA if Cali regents voted for their own demise.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

“Potentially block”

Inserted by the user to make it seem dramatic..

 

[Word]

The move will help UCLA (strictly financially), and hurt Cal. Forcing UCLA to remain in the USC-less PAC-12 will hurt the revenue and future athletic prospects and perhaps offerings of both which would make many faculty overjoyed. Cal owes $450M on a new sports complex and none of their Olympic or women’s sports are profitable even under the current arrangement.

I smell some politicking and damage control by Newsom, who could certainly broker revenue sharing amongst the flagship schools or from the state coffers to debt slave Cal - coffers which are currently overflowing enough to issue billions in stimulus and health insurance to undocumented residents (topic for another board). Regarding the bolded have to chuckle a little bit; UC has done a fine job on themselves ( again, for a different board).




It doesn’t really mean that UCLA is in any danger of its Big Ten move getting blocked. The UC Regents has gone on record several times that they have no such power.


However, there is a lot more complexity the Regents probably didn’t further evaluate among first glance, and very messy state and political litigation that could be in the works if this deal goes as planned.

(It should be currently noted that UC System president Michael Drake is a Stanford grad, and was the president at Ohio State from 2014-20. There is only one UC Berkeley graduate among the 14 appointed regents.)

Namely, UCLA’s gain is Cal’s loss. A financial boon for the Bruins in Westwood cascades into a financial boondogle. More from Wilner’s article about the lack of leadership between Cal and Regents regarding the intentions of USC and UCLA.


From Cal’s side, it was the most stunning aspect of the news the past two weeks. More from ESPN.


Here is UCLA’s response to how the Regents were informed:


Regardless of the impact for UCLA on the campus-level, it’s a public institution for the state of California, and its departure from the Pac-12 has the potential to damage THE public institution in the state up north.

Any revenues or benefits the Bruins enjoy and could reap for the UC system get cancelled out by the significant damage the athletic department would face if they were stuck in a diminished Pac-10 conference facing significant revenue cuts. Cal has an enormous stadium debt to forgive and repayments are hitting overdrive in the coming decades.


The flagship university of the state of the West facing nine figure debt can become a major state political problem if things aren’t ironed out quickly. I imagine the Regents want to explore all options for a satisfactory solution before this issue moves past the university stage and into the public eye.

UC Regents to address UCLA to the Big Ten move, particularly its financial impact on Cal

Is there a legal recourse to blocking UCLA's Big Ten move?

writeforcalifornia.com

I've never been a fan of Drake.

 

[Goldmember]

“Potentially block”

Inserted by the user to make it seem dramatic..

They could maybe decide to set the wheels in motion to block the move. But if they do, it isn’t going to be pretty for the regents or the UC system.

If all the travel is so burdensome and undesirable to the athletes, wouldn’t they all just suddenly opt to go to Cal instead?

 

[Ope3]

I’d love if they voted against this, typical woke / liberal way, destroy anything that is good!

My guess Washington would replace UCLA if Cali regents voted for their own demise.

Or maybe what they think is "good" is staying in the PAC 12. There are perfectly rational pros & cons to staying or leaving.

How has it been working for Nebraska? Money has been wonderful I am sure, but their athletic brand is not what it used to be.

 

[matt]

“Potentially block”

Inserted by the user to make it seem dramatic..

Very clickbaity. I’m willing to bet this Regents meeting has been on the calendar for awhile too.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Very clickbaity. I’m willing to bet this Regents meeting has been on the calendar for awhile too.

Potentially UCLA could show up to the meeting and go full Joey Zasa ... potentially.

 

[Gophers_4life]

“Potentially block”

Inserted by the user to make it seem dramatic..

100% clickbait. Won’t give them an unearned click.

See my post on the Washington thread for actual media Tweets on the meeting tomorrow.

 

[maroonfive]

I’d love if they voted against this, typical woke / liberal way, destroy anything that is good!

My guess Washington would replace UCLA if Cali regents voted for their own demise.

Wrong board and idiotic viewpoint.

 

[disco]

I’d love if they voted against this, typical woke / liberal way, destroy anything that is good!

My guess Washington would replace UCLA if Cali regents voted for their own demise.

Take it to another board.

 

[GopherFanatic19]

Wrong board and idiotic viewpoint.

Sorry didn’t mean to hurt your feelings. I’m bad sometimes, sorry again.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Canzano (something like a Ruesse out in Portland) opinion piece:


And the article here (you can read it for free, just click "Let me read it first"): https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-interested-in-the-voices

When UCLA representatives called me to complain about the column, I asked them to set up an interview with an athlete who was in favor of the move.

They declined.

I asked for their survey data.

They did not make it available.

This week, the UC Regents are meeting in San Francisco. They will weigh in on the fate of UCLA. In front of the meetings, the regents published some of the data from the survey.

Turns out:

• UCLA sent the survey to 600 athletes via email, but only 111 responded (80 women and 31 men).

• Only 42 total athletes in men’s and women’s sports that would be heavily impacted by the move to the Big Ten answered the survey. That included one men’s basketball player, zero baseball players, four football players and two men’s soccer players.

• Only 35 percent of the 111 respondents thought the move to the Big Ten was a “good idea.” Another seven percent thought it was a “bad idea.” The other 58 percent answered that they had “no opinion” or “need more information.”

• Among those who responded, 77 percent included “increased travel times” among their concerns. Another 66 percent noted “missed class times.”

I’m glad UCLA asked its athletes. I’m not surprised that the majority of college kids didn’t bother to respond. Like you and I, they heard in June that UCLA was gone to the Big Ten. Also, some of them won’t have eligibility beyond 2024.

Said one UCLA source: “Kids live in the now, not two years from now. It went to their email. Some responded, most didn’t.”

Bruins coaches have already started using the move to the Big Ten as part of their recruiting pitch. Future athletes will cast their votes by either choosing UCLA or deciding to go somewhere else. A survey won’t be needed.

The Pac-12 did all sorts of things wrong in this equation. It had terrible leadership under ex-commissioner Larry Scott. Sources at UCLA and USC told me they felt slighted by having to share revenue equally with the other 10 members despite being in a larger media market and paying higher taxes in California.