Bobodeluxe said:

---

Bay Area eyeballs don't show up for Cal or Stanford, so what is the need for local representation?

---

It's about getting their network on the local TV packages. Same reason they added Rutgers.

Announcement tonight, reportedly...

From a source on UCLA and USC moving to the Big Ten in 2024-25. Vote among Big Ten presidents and chancellors is happening now. The source added:“I think they’ll be an announcement this evening.”

— Pete Thamel (@PeteThamel) June 30, 2022

Strykur said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Bay Area eyeballs don't show up for Cal or Stanford, so what is the need for local representation?

---

There are more Big Ten alumni here than in Chicago.

---

Sure. The market is here. Cal and Stanford have little attraction, so we are not a concern.

Big Dog said:

---

3. All about the Benjamins. If UCLA can double/triple (?) their budget, put some money back to teh academic side of the house, and the BiG is adamant to not take Cal, The Regents will not say no.

---

Sure maybe, but the question is why the B1G would be adamant to not take Cal. Cal may not have a great football program right now, but they are in a big media market, have the right academic profile, and do bring other good athletic programs. If it makes the L.A. schools happy to have Cal come along, why not?

Big Dog said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

Several factors to ground this discussion:

1.) The Regents do have to approve this decision
2.) Cal has to create an outcome that manages the Stadium Debt and the ongoing need for revenue (both direct and the large indirect amounts) that come from Cal participating in big time college athletics
3.) If the Regents approve UCLA leaving for the B10, it is very hard to imagine it happening without Cal. If not, hard to imagine the Regents approving UCLA leaving.
4.) There is no middle ground here for Cal. A diminished P12 will starve it of the capital needed to pay off the Stadium, maintain an athletic presence beyond the sports that have evergreen funding (e.g. aquatics, rugby, crew), and fulfill Title IX
5.) The Regents will understand points 2 and 4 well and will act accordingly
6.) Perhaps more importantly, the B10, FOX, and ESPN are all about eyeballs and revenue. Why wouldn't they want the Bay Area? It's one of the six largest in the US. These are the same entities that decided to add Maryland and Rutgers to the B10 not long ago

---

1. I have no knowledge, so will accept as fact.

2. Maybe its time to step back from "big time" athletics (many faculty, staff, students and parents would concur). My point is that big time athletics is no longer a guarantee. Not sure the Regents care.

3. All about the Benjamins. If UCLA can double/triple (?) their budget, put some money back to teh academic side of the house, and the BiG is adamant to not take Cal, The Regents will not say no.

4. Stadium is sunk cost. The Regents/Cal will have to eat it (and perhaps charge UCLA an 'exit' fee to help offset their leaving).

5. They care about expenses, yes, but do they care about big time sports?

6. This is my biggest disagreement with you. Not sure the BA college sports viewing audience is as big as you think. And don't forget, much of the BiG is in the eastern time zone, so the west night time clock doesn't work for it.

---

2. There is a half billion dollars in debt -- that's both why it would be difficult for us to step back from "big time" college athletics, and also why the regents care.

3. The Benjamins on the academic side dwarf the athletic revenue, even in the Big 10. I believe UCLA's budget is around $1.3bn a year, and somewhere around $600m of that comes from the state. I also don't see why on earth the Big 10 would be "adamant" not to take Cal (and Stanford) -- they would be the 3rd biggest media market in the conference and the 2 best schools.

4. They will only have to "eat it" assuming there is no other option.

5. I don't know what this means -- it's not a holistic conversation about the individual passions of each regent, it's about the financial health of the UC system as a whole.

6. It's about market size, and what Fox can charge advertisers for it.

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

3. All about the Benjamins. If UCLA can double/triple (?) their budget, put some money back to teh academic side of the house, and the BiG is adamant to not take Cal, The Regents will not say no.

---

Sure maybe, but the question is why the B1G would be adamant to not take Cal. Cal may not have a great football program right now, but they are in a big media market, have the right academic profile, and do bring other good athletic programs. If it makes the L.A. schools happy to have Cal come along, why not?

---

"May not"

lol

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

3. All about the Benjamins. If UCLA can double/triple (?) their budget, put some money back to teh academic side of the house, and the BiG is adamant to not take Cal, The Regents will not say no.

---

Sure maybe, but the question is why the B1G would be adamant to not take Cal. Cal may not have a great football program right now, but they are in a big media market, have the right academic profile, and do bring other good athletic programs. If it makes the L.A. schools happy to have Cal come along, why not?

---

They took Rutgers for gods sake.

I'm not a religious man, but it might be time to start praying.

What about a Western pod to the new Big 10:

USC
UCLA
FURD
CAL
UW
UO

Leaves out the less desirable NW schools and the non academic 'zona schools.

The pod could play each other, have 2-3 preseason games and each school play 2-3 schools in other Big 10 pods.

This would satisfy the Cal/UCLA regents dilemma, and move the last of the power schools in the Pac 12 (less maybe ASU), and keep rivalries alive.

Also, the Arizona schools plus the mountain schools could join the Big 12 to make a large conference there.

All seems logical to me, especaily since it keeps us playing in a Power conference, as weak as we may be there.

maxer said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

3. All about the Benjamins. If UCLA can double/triple (?) their budget, put some money back to teh academic side of the house, and the BiG is adamant to not take Cal, The Regents will not say no.

---

Sure maybe, but the question is why the B1G would be adamant to not take Cal. Cal may not have a great football program right now, but they are in a big media market, have the right academic profile, and do bring other good athletic programs. If it makes the L.A. schools happy to have Cal come along, why not?

---

They took Rutgers for gods sake.

---

The Big Ten took Rutgers because they found a loophole in the Big Ten Network deals with cable and satellite companies that required those companies to carry BTN and pay a high per-subscriber rate in every state where the Big Ten has a member. Millions of cable boxes paying the Big Ten every month.

Even if that applies to California, they wouldn't need more California schools in addition to UCLA and USC in order to make that money.

Strykur said:

---

rrhea said:

---

That's the end of college football as a national sport. There are now only two conferences. The Pac 10, Big 12, and ACC are now in a second division with a big gap between first division. FCS is now third division.

---

The new Big-12 could already be dead on arrival, how many of those guys are calling the PAC-12 right now?

---

Yeah. If the USC and UCLA move to the Big 10 happens, the remaining teams in the Pac 10 should poach Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, BYU, Oklahoma State, and Houston from the Big 12 and create the Pac 16. That would create a third 16-team super conference that wouldn't be as attractive as the new SEC and Big 10, but it might be able to survive. Otherwise, we might as well fold up shop.

People putting a lot of faith in the UC Regents.

Bottom line for them will be this... would they rather have 1 team as part of the B1G's next TV deal, which will be massive, approaching $1 billion dollars, or 0 teams.

Everything is pointing to UCLA and USC joining the B1G as soon as tomorrow. Would be shocked if UCLA doesn't already have something in place with the Regents to allow this move.

B1G will be at 16. Target for future expansion is probably is probably 20 teams total. SEC would probably match them at 20. So that's 6 available spots in the B1G and SEC combined.

Teams out there for those leagues would include Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Stanford, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Va Tech, Florida State and California. among others.

This will be a mad scramble for a place at the table. I expect to start hearing Oregon rumors in the next 24 hours.

My two cents:

Scenario 1: Cal somehow also finds its way into the Big Ten. Big-time Intercollegiate athletics at Cal survives--at least for a while longer.

Scenario 2: Cal remains in a weakened Pac or similar conference. Media rights revenue declines significantly. The athletic department finds a way to off-load even more stadium debt to the campus or perhaps even to the UC System. Intercollegiate athletics manages to soldier on, but with less cachet in a lower-tier conference, perhaps fewer sports and ongoing budget problems.

Scenario 3: Cal admin takes this as an opportunity to drastically reduce the school's athletic profile. Many sports are cut; school goes down to D-2 for those that remain, etc. Stadium debt is managed as in Scenario 2; with the total debt is off-loaded from what remains of intercollegiate athletics. Many unhappy fans.

General comment: that stadium renovation cost was a total disaster. Should have tried to do it much more economically. In some ways, that project was the death knell of Cal athletics. .

BigDaddy said:

---

People putting a lot of faith in the UC Regents.

Bottom line for them will be this... would they rather have 1 team as part of the B1G's next TV deal, which will be massive, approaching $1 billion dollars, or 0 teams.

Everything is pointing to UCLA and USC joining the B1G as soon as tomorrow. Would be shocked if UCLA doesn't already have something in place with the Regents to allow this move.

B1G will be at 16. Target for future expansion is probably is probably 20 teams total. SEC would probably match them at 20. So that's 6 available spots in the B1G and SEC combined.

Teams out there for those leagues would include Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Stanford, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Va Tech, Florida State and California. among others.

This will be a mad scramble for a place at the table. I expect to start hearing Oregon rumors in the next 24 hours.

---

Bingo.

BigDaddy said:

---

People putting a lot of faith in the UC Regents.

Bottom line for them will be this... would they rather have 1 team as part of the B1G's next TV deal, which will be massive, approaching $1 billion dollars, or 0 teams.

Everything is pointing to UCLA and USC joining the B1G as soon as tomorrow. Would be shocked if UCLA doesn't already have something in place with the Regents to allow this move.

B1G will be at 16. Target for future expansion is probably is probably 20 teams total. SEC would probably match them at 20. So that's 6 available spots in the B1G and SEC combined.

Teams out there for those leagues would include Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Stanford, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Va Tech, Florida State and California. among others.

This will be a mad scramble for a place at the table. I expect to start hearing Oregon rumors in the next 24 hours.

---

I'd guess that the Regents are more worried about existing debt of $500m they would be on the hook for and less worried about the opportunity cost to the Athletic Dept of UCLA.

Why today for this? Because June 30 marks the last day USC and UCLA could inform the Pac-12 they intend on leaving the conference if they want to avoid potential additional financial penalties, sources tell @CBSSports. The active Pac-12 grant of rights expires on June 30, 2024.

— Matt Norlander (@MattNorlander) June 30, 2022

maxer said:

---

and less worried about the opportunity cost to the Athletic Dept of UCLA.

---

UCLA also has a debt issue that goes away immediately with a move to the B1G.

One conference commissioner who has been involved in realignment decisions previously told CBS Sports: "You don’t leak it unless it is done."

— Matt Norlander (@MattNorlander) June 30, 2022

BearoutEast67 said:

---

I do wonder how UCLA will convince the Board of Regents that they can split from Cal. Very disappointing money grab, nonetheless, that undermines George Kliavkoff's efforts to improve the Pac12s standing.

---

$$$$$ will probably do all the convincing that is necessary.

PaulCali said:

---

My two cents:

Scenario 1: Cal somehow also finds its way into the Big Ten. Big-time Intercollegiate athletics at Cal survives--at least for a while longer.

Scenario 2: Cal remains in a weakened Pac or similar conference. Media rights revenue declines significantly. The athletic department finds a way to off-load even more stadium debt to the campus or perhaps even to the UC System. Intercollegiate athletics manages to soldier on, but with less cachet in a lower-tier conference, perhaps fewer sports and ongoing budget problems.

Scenario 3: Cal admin takes this as an opportunity to drastically reduce the school's athletic profile. Many sports are cut; school goes down to D-2 for those that remain, etc. Stadium debt is managed as in Scenario 2.

---

1 is great, 2 would be sad and frankly I think many people would just stop caring, 3 would make me regret choosing Cal lol

maxer said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

People putting a lot of faith in the UC Regents.

Bottom line for them will be this... would they rather have 1 team as part of the B1G's next TV deal, which will be massive, approaching $1 billion dollars, or 0 teams.

Everything is pointing to UCLA and USC joining the B1G as soon as tomorrow. Would be shocked if UCLA doesn't already have something in place with the Regents to allow this move.

B1G will be at 16. Target for future expansion is probably is probably 20 teams total. SEC would probably match them at 20. So that's 6 available spots in the B1G and SEC combined.

Teams out there for those leagues would include Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Stanford, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Va Tech, Florida State and California. among others.

This will be a mad scramble for a place at the table. I expect to start hearing Oregon rumors in the next 24 hours.

---

I'd guess that the Regents are more worried about existing debt of $500m they would be on the hook for and less worried about the opportunity cost to the Athletic Dept of UCLA.

---

If the regents understood how negotiations work at all, they would understand how much leverage they have in this situation.

Let's say the regents played chicken with the big10 and told them under no circumstances will they approve ucla to leave unless you take cal. There is zero chance big10 doesn't take cal as well. If you lose ucla, you stand to lose usc as well. Big10 expansion into the west doesn't happen without ucla AND usc. If the cost is to take lowly cal, the big10 has no other choice.

Unfortunately, I doubt the regents understand any of this.

Not immediately. pic.twitter.com/TV7y8KqKSJ

— Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) June 30, 2022

ducky23 said:

---

maxer said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

People putting a lot of faith in the UC Regents.

Bottom line for them will be this... would they rather have 1 team as part of the B1G's next TV deal, which will be massive, approaching $1 billion dollars, or 0 teams.

Everything is pointing to UCLA and USC joining the B1G as soon as tomorrow. Would be shocked if UCLA doesn't already have something in place with the Regents to allow this move.

B1G will be at 16. Target for future expansion is probably is probably 20 teams total. SEC would probably match them at 20. So that's 6 available spots in the B1G and SEC combined.

Teams out there for those leagues would include Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Stanford, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Va Tech, Florida State and California. among others.

This will be a mad scramble for a place at the table. I expect to start hearing Oregon rumors in the next 24 hours.

---

I'd guess that the Regents are more worried about existing debt of $500m they would be on the hook for and less worried about the opportunity cost to the Athletic Dept of UCLA.

---

If the regents understood how negotiations work at all, they would understand how much leverage they have in this situation.

Let's say the regents played chicken with the big10 and told them under no circumstances will they approve ucla to leave unless you take cal. There is zero chance big10 doesn't take cal as well. If you lose ucla, you stand to lose usc as well. Big10 expansion into the west doesn't happen without ucla AND usc. If the cost is to take lowly cal, the big10 has no other choice.

Unfortunately, I doubt the regents understand any of this.

---

Agreed on leverage. Not sure how much Regents understand -- hopefully it's made clear to them by people like Chancellor Christ.

ducky23 said:

---

maxer said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

People putting a lot of faith in the UC Regents.

Bottom line for them will be this... would they rather have 1 team as part of the B1G's next TV deal, which will be massive, approaching $1 billion dollars, or 0 teams.

Everything is pointing to UCLA and USC joining the B1G as soon as tomorrow. Would be shocked if UCLA doesn't already have something in place with the Regents to allow this move.

B1G will be at 16. Target for future expansion is probably is probably 20 teams total. SEC would probably match them at 20. So that's 6 available spots in the B1G and SEC combined.

Teams out there for those leagues would include Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Stanford, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Va Tech, Florida State and California. among others.

This will be a mad scramble for a place at the table. I expect to start hearing Oregon rumors in the next 24 hours.

---

I'd guess that the Regents are more worried about existing debt of $500m they would be on the hook for and less worried about the opportunity cost to the Athletic Dept of UCLA.

---

If the regents understood how negotiations work at all, they would understand how much leverage they have in this situation.

Let's say the regents played chicken with the big10 and told them under no circumstances will they approve ucla to leave unless you take cal. There is zero chance big10 doesn't take cal as well. If you lose ucla, you stand to lose usc as well. Big10 expansion into the west doesn't happen without ucla AND usc. If the cost is to take lowly cal, the big10 has no other choice.

Unfortunately, I doubt the regents understand any of this.

---

That scenario is putting a LOT of faith into the idea that USC wouldn't take the money and do what's best for them with or without UCLA.

LTbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

maxer said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

People putting a lot of faith in the UC Regents.

Bottom line for them will be this... would they rather have 1 team as part of the B1G's next TV deal, which will be massive, approaching $1 billion dollars, or 0 teams.

Everything is pointing to UCLA and USC joining the B1G as soon as tomorrow. Would be shocked if UCLA doesn't already have something in place with the Regents to allow this move.

B1G will be at 16. Target for future expansion is probably is probably 20 teams total. SEC would probably match them at 20. So that's 6 available spots in the B1G and SEC combined.

Teams out there for those leagues would include Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Stanford, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Va Tech, Florida State and California. among others.

This will be a mad scramble for a place at the table. I expect to start hearing Oregon rumors in the next 24 hours.

---

I'd guess that the Regents are more worried about existing debt of $500m they would be on the hook for and less worried about the opportunity cost to the Athletic Dept of UCLA.

---

If the regents understood how negotiations work at all, they would understand how much leverage they have in this situation.

Let's say the regents played chicken with the big10 and told them under no circumstances will they approve ucla to leave unless you take cal. There is zero chance big10 doesn't take cal as well. If you lose ucla, you stand to lose usc as well. Big10 expansion into the west doesn't happen without ucla AND usc. If the cost is to take lowly cal, the big10 has no other choice.

Unfortunately, I doubt the regents understand any of this.

---

That scenario is putting a LOT of faith into the idea that USC wouldn't take the money and do what's best for them with or without UCLA.

---

Of course. USC will go whether or not UCLA is going along with them.

In a way, that's UCLA's leverage. They can say, Look, taking half the Pac-12 is not an option that is on the table. The only options on the table are (1) USC and UCLA join the Big Ten, or (2) USC joins the Big Ten.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

What about a Western pod to the new Big 10:

USC
UCLA
FURD
CAL
UW
UO

Leaves out the less desirable NW schools and the non academic 'zona schools.

The pod could play each other, have 2-3 preseason games and each school play 2-3 schools in other Big 10 pods.

This would satisfy the Cal/UCLA regents dilemma, and move the last of the power schools in the Pac 12 (less maybe ASU), and keep rivalries alive.

Also, the Arizona schools plus the mountain schools could join the Big 12 to make a large conference there.

All seems logical to me, especaily since it keeps us playing in a Power conference, as weak as we may be there.

---

The B1G commissioner is from Phoenix and played at ASU. Might be tough for him to screw his alma mater like that.

The Pac10 taking Utah and Colorado was a MASSIVE mistake. As soon as the Pac agreed to split Ca into north and south, and have Utah in the south, the deal should have been dead.

Once you step one foot down that history killing path there was no saving it. We all knew it. They were blinded by the thought of a superTVnetwork.

The October big game, the no TV revenue, limited TV reach, being forced to end tradition or play the two strongest teams in cross division play, non-stop middle of the night games... its all tied back to letting a midmajor mini-market team make demands against the conference.

calumnus said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

What about a Western pod to the new Big 10:

USC
UCLA
FURD
CAL
UW
UO

Leaves out the less desirable NW schools and the non academic 'zona schools.

The pod could play each other, have 2-3 preseason games and each school play 2-3 schools in other Big 10 pods.

This would satisfy the Cal/UCLA regents dilemma, and move the last of the power schools in the Pac 12 (less maybe ASU), and keep rivalries alive.

Also, the Arizona schools plus the mountain schools could join the Big 12 to make a large conference there.

All seems logical to me, especaily since it keeps us playing in a Power conference, as weak as we may be there.

---

The B1G commissioner is from Phoenix and played at ASU. Might be tough for him to screw his alma mater like that.

---

The rest of the Big Ten would howl at the thought of inviting the Arizona schools.

It's done.

Sources: USC and UCLA have been notified that their application to join the Big Ten has been accepted. The schools will begin play in 2024.

— Pete Thamel (@PeteThamel) June 30, 2022

It may be done, but every story I've seen has been clearly from sources connected to the Big 10. I have no doubt that they have invited/accepted USC and UCLA to join.

You'll note that there have been no statements from any sources contacted to either of those 2 schools, nor anyone involved with the UC system.

wild

BearSD said:

---

LTbear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

maxer said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

People putting a lot of faith in the UC Regents.

Bottom line for them will be this... would they rather have 1 team as part of the B1G's next TV deal, which will be massive, approaching $1 billion dollars, or 0 teams.

Everything is pointing to UCLA and USC joining the B1G as soon as tomorrow. Would be shocked if UCLA doesn't already have something in place with the Regents to allow this move.

B1G will be at 16. Target for future expansion is probably is probably 20 teams total. SEC would probably match them at 20. So that's 6 available spots in the B1G and SEC combined.

Teams out there for those leagues would include Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Stanford, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Va Tech, Florida State and California. among others.

This will be a mad scramble for a place at the table. I expect to start hearing Oregon rumors in the next 24 hours.

---

I'd guess that the Regents are more worried about existing debt of $500m they would be on the hook for and less worried about the opportunity cost to the Athletic Dept of UCLA.

---

If the regents understood how negotiations work at all, they would understand how much leverage they have in this situation.

Let's say the regents played chicken with the big10 and told them under no circumstances will they approve ucla to leave unless you take cal. There is zero chance big10 doesn't take cal as well. If you lose ucla, you stand to lose usc as well. Big10 expansion into the west doesn't happen without ucla AND usc. If the cost is to take lowly cal, the big10 has no other choice.

Unfortunately, I doubt the regents understand any of this.

---

That scenario is putting a LOT of faith into the idea that USC wouldn't take the money and do what's best for them with or without UCLA.

---

Of course. USC will go whether or not UCLA is going along with them.

In a way, that's UCLA's leverage. They can say, Look, taking half the Pac-12 is not an option that is on the table. The only options on the table are (1) USC and UCLA join the Big Ten, or (2) USC joins the Big Ten.

---

I can see the Big10 going from 14 to 15 (and a pickup next year for 16) or 16. A scenario where they go to 17 or 18 seems much harder to do.

maxer said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

maxer said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

People putting a lot of faith in the UC Regents.

Bottom line for them will be this... would they rather have 1 team as part of the B1G's next TV deal, which will be massive, approaching $1 billion dollars, or 0 teams.

Everything is pointing to UCLA and USC joining the B1G as soon as tomorrow. Would be shocked if UCLA doesn't already have something in place with the Regents to allow this move.

B1G will be at 16. Target for future expansion is probably is probably 20 teams total. SEC would probably match them at 20. So that's 6 available spots in the B1G and SEC combined.

Teams out there for those leagues would include Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Stanford, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Va Tech, Florida State and California. among others.

This will be a mad scramble for a place at the table. I expect to start hearing Oregon rumors in the next 24 hours.

---

I'd guess that the Regents are more worried about existing debt of $500m they would be on the hook for and less worried about the opportunity cost to the Athletic Dept of UCLA.

---

If the regents understood how negotiations work at all, they would understand how much leverage they have in this situation.

Let's say the regents played chicken with the big10 and told them under no circumstances will they approve ucla to leave unless you take cal. There is zero chance big10 doesn't take cal as well. If you lose ucla, you stand to lose usc as well. Big10 expansion into the west doesn't happen without ucla AND usc. If the cost is to take lowly cal, the big10 has no other choice.

Unfortunately, I doubt the regents understand any of this.

---

Agreed on leverage. Not sure how much Regents understand -- hopefully it's made clear to them by people like Chancellor Christ.

---

I can assure you this lady is not doing anything. As we all know in our hearts - the outcome for Cal is going to be the worst case scenario.

Reason #1 - we have not been relevant in football / basketball for over a decade. Not even remotely.

Reason #2 - carol Christ and Knowlton have never done anything remotely positive to enhance our standing competitively in these two sports. They sandbagged our programs.

fat_slice said:

---

maxer said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

maxer said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

People putting a lot of faith in the UC Regents.

Bottom line for them will be this... would they rather have 1 team as part of the B1G's next TV deal, which will be massive, approaching $1 billion dollars, or 0 teams.

Everything is pointing to UCLA and USC joining the B1G as soon as tomorrow. Would be shocked if UCLA doesn't already have something in place with the Regents to allow this move.

B1G will be at 16. Target for future expansion is probably is probably 20 teams total. SEC would probably match them at 20. So that's 6 available spots in the B1G and SEC combined.

Teams out there for those leagues would include Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Stanford, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Va Tech, Florida State and California. among others.

This will be a mad scramble for a place at the table. I expect to start hearing Oregon rumors in the next 24 hours.

---

I'd guess that the Regents are more worried about existing debt of $500m they would be on the hook for and less worried about the opportunity cost to the Athletic Dept of UCLA.

---

If the regents understood how negotiations work at all, they would understand how much leverage they have in this situation.

Let's say the regents played chicken with the big10 and told them under no circumstances will they approve ucla to leave unless you take cal. There is zero chance big10 doesn't take cal as well. If you lose ucla, you stand to lose usc as well. Big10 expansion into the west doesn't happen without ucla AND usc. If the cost is to take lowly cal, the big10 has no other choice.

Unfortunately, I doubt the regents understand any of this.

---

Agreed on leverage. Not sure how much Regents understand -- hopefully it's made clear to them by people like Chancellor Christ.

---

I can assure you this lady is not doing anything. As we all know in our hearts - the outcome for Cal is going to be the worst case scenario.

Reason #1 - we have not been relevant in football / basketball for over a decade. Not even remotely.

Reason #2 - carol Christ and Knowlton have never done anything remotely positive to enhance our standing competitively in these two sports. They sandbagged our programs.

---

I'd argue that Christ converting half of the stadium debt to general University debt (and off the books of the Athletic Dept) was one of the larger things done in the last decade to enhance the competitive standing of all athletics at Cal.

Any chance California pulls a Texas Legislature and demands other two California teams be taken along?