calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

LTbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

(its not a 100% given UCLA goes to the B1G)

---

Yes it is.

---

source?

---

The Regents will not stop UCLA from leaving. They have no legal authority to do so. To try and do so amounts to a regulatory "taking". A source I know at USC and another in the CA legislature are telling me that the Regents will levy and "exit fee" to UCLA for leaving. What that amount is is not known but - there's no stopping them.

---

Well the Associate AD at UCLA is telling UCLA alums something very different, not to mention what I have heard directly and personally from one Pac President, one Pac Chancellor, 3 athletics directors, the CEO of the USC Board of Trustees (your "USC.source" may want to look at the organization chart before he shoots him mouth off), and one person on this board that has talked with an important politician who actually is ex officio member of the Board of Regents The Board of Regents has made no decision yet and at this moment is fact finding and yet to even debate a final resolution of UCLA's fate.

The comment about UC doing a regulatory taking and the Board's lack. of authority may have been one of the dumbest set of remarks I ever heard on this board on so many levels. A taking is when a regulatory decisions take private property. This may come as an absolute shock to you. but UCLA is a state entity, which negates the entire concept of regulatory taking. In fact, UCLA is a subdivision of the University of California and if the Regents so desired, it has the legal authority to simply revoke UCLA's charter and make it have no separate authority from the University of California. Nice attempt to BS us all with a load of BS..

---

Hey that's great. I guess you one-upped me on being in the know and your sources. But guess what hot shot, we're not talking about the university. We're talking about its athletic department. So I guess, the Regents can determine whether a UC goes with Adidas, Nike or UnderArmor. Or what concessions are served at sporting evens. Ticket prices, the dreaded NIL. Yes, the Regents really care about that.

Here's a spoiler alert for the delusional - UCLA is leaving. The Regents will not stop it. You can talk with your next door neighbor who might be Michael Drake. Or maybe you go golfing with Gene Block. I don't know. It doesn't matter. My argument is simply contractual. For the Regents to affect a decision as to a school departing an athletic conference, it would step into litigation. Would UCLA have protested our stadium renovation if they knew the financing deal might ultimately force them to have to cover costs for us as the price for them leaving the P12? Because, ultimately, this is probably what is going to happen - an exit fee.

Honestly, what you and others who think the Regents can stop this after "fact finding" and "debate" - is wishful thinking. Do the Regents want to get sued by Nike for blocking the move. Because the move would generate more visibility and revenue for Nike. Certainly they would have a say, right? How about the Rose Bowl? Concessions? Ticket sales? And of course, the greater and more noble argument that to block this move would likely mean the end or reduction of Olympic sports at UCLA. Hmm...I wonder if the Regents really want to take that on.

The arguments presented on this board for wanting to block UCLA's move is wishful thinking. Nothing more. Moreover the arguments I've seen on this board for Cal's inclusion into the Big 10 are also too hopeful. The narrative you are presenting is factual only in the context that you're dropping names and titles and they are telling you "we continue to investigate".

Bottom line is this. Everyone wishes we were more successful and thought of leaving first. But, we didn't. Chalk it up to poor or unfocused management. Who knows. But - everyone is mad because our lesser "sister school" is strengthening their position at the supposed expense of us. We are being left behind. And for us to say, "well then they need to cover our stadium costs because their departure will negatively impact the UC system" - its actually quite pathetic.

We'll see what happens. It seems like the Big 10 is now cooling to the idea of further expansion for now. Until then - UCLA goes. USC too. Anything less is wishful thinking.

---

Bottom line is you continue to not know what you are talking about:

Let's count the ways you are legally wrong, and clueless:

"But guess what hot shot, we're not talking about the university. We're talking about its athletic department. So I guess, the Regents can determine whether a UC goes with Adidas, Nike or UnderArmor. Or what concessions are served at sporting evens. Ticket prices, the dreaded NIL. Yes, the Regents really care about that. "

First, the UCLA athleltic department is part of UCLA and UCLA is pubic entity, which is subdivision of UC, which is an independent entity that is a subdivision of the State. In case you have not followed that complexity, that means the UCLA athletic department has 3 levels of bosses on top off it, which it must obey. The second disconnect is Adidas, Nike and UA have contracts that are WAIT FOR IT, APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF REGENTS, SO FOR EXAMPLE, IT WAS THE BOARD OR REGENTS THAT SUED UA ON BEHALF OF UCLA and had to approve the settlement with UA. Third, NIL in this state actually is regulated by the State of California, not UCLA. UCLA and all colleges must comply and report to the Sate all NIL in accordance with SB 206.


"Here's a spoiler alert for the delusional - UCLA is leaving. The Regents will not stop it. You can talk with your next door neighbor who might be Michael Drake. Or maybe you go golfing with Gene Block. I don't know. It doesn't matter. My argument is simply contractual. For the Regents to affect a decision as to a school departing an athletic conference, it would step into litigation. Would UCLA have protested our stadium renovation if they knew the financing deal might ultimately force them to have to cover costs for us as the price for them leaving the P12? Because, ultimately, this is probably what is going to happen - an exit fee."

First this seems like an attempt to move the goal posts. Recall you said that the Regents had decided that UCLA was leaving and paying some sort of compensation. You just make that up, since it factually is not true. Second, there seems to be some sort of implicit acknowledgment that the Regents had done no such thing, but you have determined that really doesn't matter because UCLA signed a contract and the Regents is afraid of litigation. This concept continues your prior lack of understanding of how state and local government works. Yes, UCLA signed a contract with the B1G. Here is an earth shattering concept found in th Government Code and State Constitution, that the State can declare any contract made by a subdivision void or act in way that makes it illegal to enforce. Go back a look at who controls who controls who discussed above. Does the contracting party have recourse if the State or Regents acts in such a way? Yes, if the Regents or State approved the contact like in the case of Nike and other sponsors. Did that happen with the B1G? No. So your argument about contractual litigation and your spoiler alert are simply bullcrap. As for what the Regents is thinking about fairness I guess, the folks at Cal don't exactly see it that way you do.

Then it gets moronic:

"Honestly, what you and others who think the Regents can stop this after "fact finding" and "debate" - is wishful thinking. Do the Regents want to get sued by Nike for blocking the move. Because the move would generate more visibility and revenue for Nike. Certainly they would have a say, right? How about the Rose Bowl? Concessions? Ticket sales? And of course, the greater and more noble argument that to block this move would likely mean the end or reduction of Olympic sports at UCLA. Hmm...I wonder if the Regents really want to take that on. "

Wait, now the Regents is going to be sued by ....Nike? What contract or obligation does the Regents have with Nike regarding UCLA joining the B1G. ? Ignoring for the movement that the State has the right to make UCLA disappear, no less impair their actually existing contracts. How does the Board of Regents even been able to get into a contract with Nike about participation by UCLA in the B1G when UCLA didn't tell the Regents it was moving conferences? The early comments about regulatory taking are not the dumbest thing ever posted, this is. And then comes the Rose Bowl. The Pac 12 has a contract with the Rose Bowl that its 12 existing teams will go to the Rose Bowl if selected. Do I need to go further on this one? The Rose Bowl wants to have UCLA or USC face an eastern opponent, but the best selling scenario is UCLA vs USC. Clearly the contract will have to get revised when USC moves, but if UCLA has to stay in the Pac, the Rose Bowl is going to be estatic. Figure how many tickets get sold if its USC vs UCLA face off in the Rose Bowl game. The reduction of team sports is an argument not a legal matter- what happens if the Regents just takes a bunch of money away from UCLA and gives it to Cal. I know, UCLA will take it away from the football program so it can be less competitive, in order to save non-revenue sports at UCLA. This is called sarcasm - not gonna happen.


The arguments presented on this board for wanting to block UCLA's move is wishful thinking. Nothing more. Moreover the arguments I've seen on this board for Cal's inclusion into the Big 10 are also too hopeful. The narrative you are presenting is factual only in the context that you're dropping names and titles and they are telling you "we continue to investigate".

Bottom line is this. Everyone wishes we were more successful and thought of leaving first. But, we didn't. Chalk it up to poor or unfocused management. Who knows. But - everyone is mad because our lesser "sister school" is strengthening their position at the supposed expense of us. We are being left behind. And for us to say, "well then they need to cover our stadium costs because their departure will negatively impact the UC system" - its actually quite pathetic.

I'm going to let everyone else comment on this stuff since I don't find it even rises to the level of warranting a response.

---

You give far more weight to what the Regents can and cannot do. Approve or not approve. I really don't see it that way. UCLA sued UA. UCLA agreed on a settlement. The Regents approved/stamped it.

And I think you're still thinking about college football the old way. And as far as the Rose Bowl. Excuse me? The best matchup for the Rose Bowl is USC UCLA? Really? If UCLA stays put, the best match up for the Rose Bowl is USC UCLA?? Really??? You've lost the plot on that one.

Reduction of team sports. Excuse me but - isn't that one of UCLA's PRIME arguments? They are $100 million in debt and, in the face of a catastrophic budget deficit, they will have to reduce Olympic sports? Yeah, it may not be a legal argument (yet), but it is nevertheless one of the MAIN reasons UCLA decided to leave.

Lastly, I never said the exit fee had already happened. I said it was likely going to happen as the price for UCLA to leave. I appreciate you quoting the Cal Code for me. Quite nice. Some final thoughts...

I think I quoted the actual policy many months ago but, basically, it is UC policy that allows chancellors of UC campuses to enact their own contracts and inter conference athletic agreements. If memory serves, an LA Times article indicated that this had only happened twice in the last 50 years - where the Regents or a UC President has dictated or been asked by the Regents to nullify or modify a contractual decision made by a UC chancellor. In short, it never happens. And in our current case, it would set a very dangerous precedent. If they were to step in and stop the deal, then basically everything could be appealed to the Regents - from naming a building, to a loan agreement or...drum roll...a contract. Moreover, in theory, the Big 10 could sue the UC Regents for wrecking their new media deal which is predicated on UCLA's entry into the Big 10. Which is why, based on who I've talked with, they are leaning towards an exit fee. But this is also tenuous.

Can the Regents force UCLA to pay this?
Can the Regents reject or deny a legal business transaction made by UCLA?

I think the answers to both of these is no. But UCLA may relent and pay a fee that would likely go to us. Then again, what would all the other UC campuses say? Aren't they entitled to the money also? Which brings it back to us. As I see it, the only issue on the table for the Regents is how this affects Cal. How much revenue will Cal lose with UCLA's exit. And this is why, in my opinion, we are so desperate to be picked by the Big 10 because we all know that UCLAs exit cannot be stopped. The policy changes that were recommended at the Regents meeting in San Diego last month would modify the chancellor's authority. But it is based on future UC campus transactions. Again, it is all contractual

---

This argument started because you made the claim that the Regents could not legally block UCLA's move to the Big Ten and you used the regulatory taking legal theory. The criticism directed that comment was directed entirely at your legal analysis.

As others have said, there is a different between "will not" and "legally cannot." Look at what you said in response to the reduction of sports. You outright dismissed the reply it's not a legal argument. But that's literally the only thing being debated. Whether the law prevent the Regents from acting.

You continue to present arguments as to why the Regents will choose not to act, but then conclude by saying they cannot act. Stop conflating the words "can" and "will;" they do not mean the same thing.

---

I didn't know this was LA Law or Law and Order. I have said all along that the Regents will not stop UCLA from leaving. Now if you want to parse it out and say, "yeah you're right, but they could stop them if they wanted to". Ok, yeah, I have to concede that point. But can you all quit being brain dead and accept the reality of this??

The fact is that they won't. The 1991 policy change from the UC Regents allowed UC Chancellors broad discretion in who those campuses that they are in charge of to enter into contracts ON THEIR OWN. They don't need the Regents or the UC President's permission to do that. And that's the loophole! Don't you get it?

Any policy change that is debated is for future instances. Its not going to be retroactive. So, yes Perry Mason, the UC Regents can try and stop UCLA from leaving. But they won't. There. You feel better?

---

You keep moving goal posts. You said the Regents had made a decision already. Then you said they had no authority. Then you said there was a regulatory taking. Then you said they won't because they are afraid of being sued. Then you said the Regents didn't act on a contact is clearly acted upon. Then you said ....blah, blah, blah since anyone reading this should cut you no credibility at some point.

It is not clear right now what the Regents will do. My guess (yes, guess) is they will hold this over the B1G's and UCLA's head until a decision is made on Cal, or they conditionally approve UCLA, and reserve the right to a make decisions impacting UCLA's. budget based on what happens to Cal. But none of the leverage you suggest exists actually does exist - you don't understand the relevant law, contacts or governmental relationships. The only real leverage I see is there are more votes in Southern California than in Northern California.

---

Find statement where I said that was a done deal. Find it and post it. I never said the decision was made already.

I can move the goalposts all I want. The fact is you have nothing but a hope that the Regents will block UCLA's move because that's really all you have - hope. Nothing factual. Nothing specific in terms of anything legal that would permit the Regents to block UCLA's move. Is this what you and this board are reduced to?

Don't think I get it? Fine. Keep on pushing the Berkeley mentality of "hopefully the Regents will help us because we can't survive without UCLA". Great argument pal.

What i find equally pathetic is that its the Pac 12 that is leading the charge of trying to keep everything together. Its not the Regents. And its not US. You're all smoke bro.

---

Here's what I think:

I think Cal has a better than 50% chance of getting an invite to the B1G if and when they decide to expand further to the West Coast. That doesn't mean it's a done deal, just that we're more likely than not to get it.

Part of the reason I think that is that there is clearly a political issue with the UC Regents and the B1G inviting UCLA and not Cal. That doesn't mean they are going to block the move (again, I also think that's unlikely), but it does mean pressure from them could convince UCLA and the rest of the B1G to support adding Cal (and Stanford) to the conference as well, just to make all the trouble go away. That's not a definite thing, just that the issue with the Regents is a factor in Cal's favor re: B1G expansion.

---

But rather than framing this as "the Regents can/should block UCLA" I'd much rather the Regents simply be putting pressure on UCLA's chancellor and the B1G (university presidents) to also include Cal to get "their full blessing."

---

They'd have to use "we might block you" as the pressure point, but I think the latter is the more likely action.

---

"We might block you" is the nuclear option. "We will be pissed and not as generous and cooperative in other areas" is the more realistic threat. It costs nothing for UCLA to be lobbying for us. We need to be team UC on this one.

---

sosheezy said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

Moreso, having the Regents try to put pressure on B1G will just further cement our program as one looking for handouts and not really deserving an invite. I don't think we should piss off the B1G via pressuring - it will just hurt our cause.

---

The alternative of Cal doing nothing to fight for its financial stability, other than hoping and praying for a Big Ten invite, is a non-starter. Cal & UC, having an internal system discussion about how to minimize the damage of what UCLA did to its sister school, is entirely appropriate. If Cal wasn't pushing for it, we'd all be screaming about how we are rolling over and quitting on Cal Athletics, and showing zero fight.

Big Ten invite isn't a given at all or even if it happens it could be 7-8 years from now. We know UCLA leaving is impacting the Pac 12 contract we would have received. Pursuing some action with possible outcomes of inclusion in Big Ten (because this goes away) or compensation for unrealized media revenue (through whatever funding switcheroo w/UCLA), is critical if the alternative is capitulation.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

GMP said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

LTbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

(its not a 100% given UCLA goes to the B1G)

---

Yes it is.

---

source?

---

The Regents will not stop UCLA from leaving. They have no legal authority to do so. To try and do so amounts to a regulatory "taking". A source I know at USC and another in the CA legislature are telling me that the Regents will levy and "exit fee" to UCLA for leaving. What that amount is is not known but - there's no stopping them.

---

Well the Associate AD at UCLA is telling UCLA alums something very different, not to mention what I have heard directly and personally from one Pac President, one Pac Chancellor, 3 athletics directors, the CEO of the USC Board of Trustees (your "USC.source" may want to look at the organization chart before he shoots him mouth off), and one person on this board that has talked with an important politician who actually is ex officio member of the Board of Regents The Board of Regents has made no decision yet and at this moment is fact finding and yet to even debate a final resolution of UCLA's fate.

The comment about UC doing a regulatory taking and the Board's lack. of authority may have been one of the dumbest set of remarks I ever heard on this board on so many levels. A taking is when a regulatory decisions take private property. This may come as an absolute shock to you. but UCLA is a state entity, which negates the entire concept of regulatory taking. In fact, UCLA is a subdivision of the University of California and if the Regents so desired, it has the legal authority to simply revoke UCLA's charter and make it have no separate authority from the University of California. Nice attempt to BS us all with a load of BS..

---

Hey that's great. I guess you one-upped me on being in the know and your sources. But guess what hot shot, we're not talking about the university. We're talking about its athletic department. So I guess, the Regents can determine whether a UC goes with Adidas, Nike or UnderArmor. Or what concessions are served at sporting evens. Ticket prices, the dreaded NIL. Yes, the Regents really care about that.

Here's a spoiler alert for the delusional - UCLA is leaving. The Regents will not stop it. You can talk with your next door neighbor who might be Michael Drake. Or maybe you go golfing with Gene Block. I don't know. It doesn't matter. My argument is simply contractual. For the Regents to affect a decision as to a school departing an athletic conference, it would step into litigation. Would UCLA have protested our stadium renovation if they knew the financing deal might ultimately force them to have to cover costs for us as the price for them leaving the P12? Because, ultimately, this is probably what is going to happen - an exit fee.

Honestly, what you and others who think the Regents can stop this after "fact finding" and "debate" - is wishful thinking. Do the Regents want to get sued by Nike for blocking the move. Because the move would generate more visibility and revenue for Nike. Certainly they would have a say, right? How about the Rose Bowl? Concessions? Ticket sales? And of course, the greater and more noble argument that to block this move would likely mean the end or reduction of Olympic sports at UCLA. Hmm...I wonder if the Regents really want to take that on.

The arguments presented on this board for wanting to block UCLA's move is wishful thinking. Nothing more. Moreover the arguments I've seen on this board for Cal's inclusion into the Big 10 are also too hopeful. The narrative you are presenting is factual only in the context that you're dropping names and titles and they are telling you "we continue to investigate".

Bottom line is this. Everyone wishes we were more successful and thought of leaving first. But, we didn't. Chalk it up to poor or unfocused management. Who knows. But - everyone is mad because our lesser "sister school" is strengthening their position at the supposed expense of us. We are being left behind. And for us to say, "well then they need to cover our stadium costs because their departure will negatively impact the UC system" - its actually quite pathetic.

We'll see what happens. It seems like the Big 10 is now cooling to the idea of further expansion for now. Until then - UCLA goes. USC too. Anything less is wishful thinking.

---

Bottom line is you continue to not know what you are talking about:

Let's count the ways you are legally wrong, and clueless:

"But guess what hot shot, we're not talking about the university. We're talking about its athletic department. So I guess, the Regents can determine whether a UC goes with Adidas, Nike or UnderArmor. Or what concessions are served at sporting evens. Ticket prices, the dreaded NIL. Yes, the Regents really care about that. "

First, the UCLA athleltic department is part of UCLA and UCLA is pubic entity, which is subdivision of UC, which is an independent entity that is a subdivision of the State. In case you have not followed that complexity, that means the UCLA athletic department has 3 levels of bosses on top off it, which it must obey. The second disconnect is Adidas, Nike and UA have contracts that are WAIT FOR IT, APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF REGENTS, SO FOR EXAMPLE, IT WAS THE BOARD OR REGENTS THAT SUED UA ON BEHALF OF UCLA and had to approve the settlement with UA. Third, NIL in this state actually is regulated by the State of California, not UCLA. UCLA and all colleges must comply and report to the Sate all NIL in accordance with SB 206.


"Here's a spoiler alert for the delusional - UCLA is leaving. The Regents will not stop it. You can talk with your next door neighbor who might be Michael Drake. Or maybe you go golfing with Gene Block. I don't know. It doesn't matter. My argument is simply contractual. For the Regents to affect a decision as to a school departing an athletic conference, it would step into litigation. Would UCLA have protested our stadium renovation if they knew the financing deal might ultimately force them to have to cover costs for us as the price for them leaving the P12? Because, ultimately, this is probably what is going to happen - an exit fee."

First this seems like an attempt to move the goal posts. Recall you said that the Regents had decided that UCLA was leaving and paying some sort of compensation. You just make that up, since it factually is not true. Second, there seems to be some sort of implicit acknowledgment that the Regents had done no such thing, but you have determined that really doesn't matter because UCLA signed a contract and the Regents is afraid of litigation. This concept continues your prior lack of understanding of how state and local government works. Yes, UCLA signed a contract with the B1G. Here is an earth shattering concept found in th Government Code and State Constitution, that the State can declare any contract made by a subdivision void or act in way that makes it illegal to enforce. Go back a look at who controls who controls who discussed above. Does the contracting party have recourse if the State or Regents acts in such a way? Yes, if the Regents or State approved the contact like in the case of Nike and other sponsors. Did that happen with the B1G? No. So your argument about contractual litigation and your spoiler alert are simply bullcrap. As for what the Regents is thinking about fairness I guess, the folks at Cal don't exactly see it that way you do.

Then it gets moronic:

"Honestly, what you and others who think the Regents can stop this after "fact finding" and "debate" - is wishful thinking. Do the Regents want to get sued by Nike for blocking the move. Because the move would generate more visibility and revenue for Nike. Certainly they would have a say, right? How about the Rose Bowl? Concessions? Ticket sales? And of course, the greater and more noble argument that to block this move would likely mean the end or reduction of Olympic sports at UCLA. Hmm...I wonder if the Regents really want to take that on. "

Wait, now the Regents is going to be sued by ....Nike? What contract or obligation does the Regents have with Nike regarding UCLA joining the B1G. ? Ignoring for the movement that the State has the right to make UCLA disappear, no less impair their actually existing contracts. How does the Board of Regents even been able to get into a contract with Nike about participation by UCLA in the B1G when UCLA didn't tell the Regents it was moving conferences? The early comments about regulatory taking are not the dumbest thing ever posted, this is. And then comes the Rose Bowl. The Pac 12 has a contract with the Rose Bowl that its 12 existing teams will go to the Rose Bowl if selected. Do I need to go further on this one? The Rose Bowl wants to have UCLA or USC face an eastern opponent, but the best selling scenario is UCLA vs USC. Clearly the contract will have to get revised when USC moves, but if UCLA has to stay in the Pac, the Rose Bowl is going to be estatic. Figure how many tickets get sold if its USC vs UCLA face off in the Rose Bowl game. The reduction of team sports is an argument not a legal matter- what happens if the Regents just takes a bunch of money away from UCLA and gives it to Cal. I know, UCLA will take it away from the football program so it can be less competitive, in order to save non-revenue sports at UCLA. This is called sarcasm - not gonna happen.


The arguments presented on this board for wanting to block UCLA's move is wishful thinking. Nothing more. Moreover the arguments I've seen on this board for Cal's inclusion into the Big 10 are also too hopeful. The narrative you are presenting is factual only in the context that you're dropping names and titles and they are telling you "we continue to investigate".

Bottom line is this. Everyone wishes we were more successful and thought of leaving first. But, we didn't. Chalk it up to poor or unfocused management. Who knows. But - everyone is mad because our lesser "sister school" is strengthening their position at the supposed expense of us. We are being left behind. And for us to say, "well then they need to cover our stadium costs because their departure will negatively impact the UC system" - its actually quite pathetic.

I'm going to let everyone else comment on this stuff since I don't find it even rises to the level of warranting a response.

---

You give far more weight to what the Regents can and cannot do. Approve or not approve. I really don't see it that way. UCLA sued UA. UCLA agreed on a settlement. The Regents approved/stamped it.

And I think you're still thinking about college football the old way. And as far as the Rose Bowl. Excuse me? The best matchup for the Rose Bowl is USC UCLA? Really? If UCLA stays put, the best match up for the Rose Bowl is USC UCLA?? Really??? You've lost the plot on that one.

Reduction of team sports. Excuse me but - isn't that one of UCLA's PRIME arguments? They are $100 million in debt and, in the face of a catastrophic budget deficit, they will have to reduce Olympic sports? Yeah, it may not be a legal argument (yet), but it is nevertheless one of the MAIN reasons UCLA decided to leave.

Lastly, I never said the exit fee had already happened. I said it was likely going to happen as the price for UCLA to leave. I appreciate you quoting the Cal Code for me. Quite nice. Some final thoughts...

I think I quoted the actual policy many months ago but, basically, it is UC policy that allows chancellors of UC campuses to enact their own contracts and inter conference athletic agreements. If memory serves, an LA Times article indicated that this had only happened twice in the last 50 years - where the Regents or a UC President has dictated or been asked by the Regents to nullify or modify a contractual decision made by a UC chancellor. In short, it never happens. And in our current case, it would set a very dangerous precedent. If they were to step in and stop the deal, then basically everything could be appealed to the Regents - from naming a building, to a loan agreement or...drum roll...a contract. Moreover, in theory, the Big 10 could sue the UC Regents for wrecking their new media deal which is predicated on UCLA's entry into the Big 10. Which is why, based on who I've talked with, they are leaning towards an exit fee. But this is also tenuous.

Can the Regents force UCLA to pay this?
Can the Regents reject or deny a legal business transaction made by UCLA?

I think the answers to both of these is no. But UCLA may relent and pay a fee that would likely go to us. Then again, what would all the other UC campuses say? Aren't they entitled to the money also? Which brings it back to us. As I see it, the only issue on the table for the Regents is how this affects Cal. How much revenue will Cal lose with UCLA's exit. And this is why, in my opinion, we are so desperate to be picked by the Big 10 because we all know that UCLAs exit cannot be stopped. The policy changes that were recommended at the Regents meeting in San Diego last month would modify the chancellor's authority. But it is based on future UC campus transactions. Again, it is all contractual

---

This argument started because you made the claim that the Regents could not legally block UCLA's move to the Big Ten and you used the regulatory taking legal theory. The criticism directed that comment was directed entirely at your legal analysis.

As others have said, there is a different between "will not" and "legally cannot." Look at what you said in response to the reduction of sports. You outright dismissed the reply it's not a legal argument. But that's literally the only thing being debated. Whether the law prevent the Regents from acting.

You continue to present arguments as to why the Regents will choose not to act, but then conclude by saying they cannot act. Stop conflating the words "can" and "will;" they do not mean the same thing.

---

I didn't know this was LA Law or Law and Order. I have said all along that the Regents will not stop UCLA from leaving. Now if you want to parse it out and say, "yeah you're right, but they could stop them if they wanted to". Ok, yeah, I have to concede that point. But can you all quit being brain dead and accept the reality of this??

The fact is that they won't. The 1991 policy change from the UC Regents allowed UC Chancellors broad discretion in who those campuses that they are in charge of to enter into contracts ON THEIR OWN. They don't need the Regents or the UC President's permission to do that. And that's the loophole! Don't you get it?

Any policy change that is debated is for future instances. Its not going to be retroactive. So, yes Perry Mason, the UC Regents can try and stop UCLA from leaving. But they won't. There. You feel better?

---

You said, "Any policy change that is debated is for future instances. Its (sic) but going to be retroactive."

You have no basis for this conclusion. And this is not a "may or could." You very clearly say that it any debate will only be for the future.

I think this is obviously wrong. Let's say UCLA entered into a contract with ISIS. People find out and throw a fit. Do you think the UC Regents are going to throw up their hands and say, "Damn, we delegated this responsibility! Drats! Well, next time we will be prepared." No, obviously not. The UC Regents will say, "You can't do this and aren't doing it."

Joining the Big 10 is obviously not a deal with ISIS. But if the Regents can prevent a deal with ISIS, they can prevent a deal with anyone. Including the Big 10.

Whether they will or not is another story. But they certainly can, which you seem to deny.

---

First, please do some research before you spout off about what I said and didn't say. This is a direct quote from Richard Leib, the UC Board Chair. who said the Regents were considering:a "proposal to bar the university president from delegating such authority (athletic conference decisions) if one UC campus' proposed athletics transaction would cause a sister campus a "material adverse financial impact" defined as 10% or greater of the operating revenue of the athletic department in question. The ban on delegating authority to campuses would also apply if a proposed deal would raise a "significant question" of university policy or create a "significant risk of reputational harm" to UC." Leib emphasized that this proposal was aimed at FUTURE CAMPUS ACTIONS. Ok? So that is the basis for my conclusion. A conclusion. THE conclusion. Get it?

Lastly, but perhaps as important - UC President Drake stated that though they were only informed of UCLA's decision to leave the Pac12 days before it was announced, UC officials followed "all policies, including one that allows the university president to delegate authority to chancellors to execute their own contracts (gee, I wonder how I could have thought of this), including intercollegiate athletic agreements."

I'll say it once, I'll say it again. Regents can try to block their exit. But they won't. Exit fee to us anyone?

---

Besides taking on a poster who is a prominent lawyer in GMP, your are also misquoting the Drake and Leib because you don't understand what they are saying. At some point, you should cut your losses, and pretending to be an authority on what is essentially legal matters.

---

GMP said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

GMP said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

LTbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

(its not a 100% given UCLA goes to the B1G)

---

Yes it is.

---

source?

---

The Regents will not stop UCLA from leaving. They have no legal authority to do so. To try and do so amounts to a regulatory "taking". A source I know at USC and another in the CA legislature are telling me that the Regents will levy and "exit fee" to UCLA for leaving. What that amount is is not known but - there's no stopping them.

---

Well the Associate AD at UCLA is telling UCLA alums something very different, not to mention what I have heard directly and personally from one Pac President, one Pac Chancellor, 3 athletics directors, the CEO of the USC Board of Trustees (your "USC.source" may want to look at the organization chart before he shoots him mouth off), and one person on this board that has talked with an important politician who actually is ex officio member of the Board of Regents The Board of Regents has made no decision yet and at this moment is fact finding and yet to even debate a final resolution of UCLA's fate.

The comment about UC doing a regulatory taking and the Board's lack. of authority may have been one of the dumbest set of remarks I ever heard on this board on so many levels. A taking is when a regulatory decisions take private property. This may come as an absolute shock to you. but UCLA is a state entity, which negates the entire concept of regulatory taking. In fact, UCLA is a subdivision of the University of California and if the Regents so desired, it has the legal authority to simply revoke UCLA's charter and make it have no separate authority from the University of California. Nice attempt to BS us all with a load of BS..

---

Hey that's great. I guess you one-upped me on being in the know and your sources. But guess what hot shot, we're not talking about the university. We're talking about its athletic department. So I guess, the Regents can determine whether a UC goes with Adidas, Nike or UnderArmor. Or what concessions are served at sporting evens. Ticket prices, the dreaded NIL. Yes, the Regents really care about that.

Here's a spoiler alert for the delusional - UCLA is leaving. The Regents will not stop it. You can talk with your next door neighbor who might be Michael Drake. Or maybe you go golfing with Gene Block. I don't know. It doesn't matter. My argument is simply contractual. For the Regents to affect a decision as to a school departing an athletic conference, it would step into litigation. Would UCLA have protested our stadium renovation if they knew the financing deal might ultimately force them to have to cover costs for us as the price for them leaving the P12? Because, ultimately, this is probably what is going to happen - an exit fee.

Honestly, what you and others who think the Regents can stop this after "fact finding" and "debate" - is wishful thinking. Do the Regents want to get sued by Nike for blocking the move. Because the move would generate more visibility and revenue for Nike. Certainly they would have a say, right? How about the Rose Bowl? Concessions? Ticket sales? And of course, the greater and more noble argument that to block this move would likely mean the end or reduction of Olympic sports at UCLA. Hmm...I wonder if the Regents really want to take that on.

The arguments presented on this board for wanting to block UCLA's move is wishful thinking. Nothing more. Moreover the arguments I've seen on this board for Cal's inclusion into the Big 10 are also too hopeful. The narrative you are presenting is factual only in the context that you're dropping names and titles and they are telling you "we continue to investigate".

Bottom line is this. Everyone wishes we were more successful and thought of leaving first. But, we didn't. Chalk it up to poor or unfocused management. Who knows. But - everyone is mad because our lesser "sister school" is strengthening their position at the supposed expense of us. We are being left behind. And for us to say, "well then they need to cover our stadium costs because their departure will negatively impact the UC system" - its actually quite pathetic.

We'll see what happens. It seems like the Big 10 is now cooling to the idea of further expansion for now. Until then - UCLA goes. USC too. Anything less is wishful thinking.

---

Bottom line is you continue to not know what you are talking about:

Let's count the ways you are legally wrong, and clueless:

"But guess what hot shot, we're not talking about the university. We're talking about its athletic department. So I guess, the Regents can determine whether a UC goes with Adidas, Nike or UnderArmor. Or what concessions are served at sporting evens. Ticket prices, the dreaded NIL. Yes, the Regents really care about that. "

First, the UCLA athleltic department is part of UCLA and UCLA is pubic entity, which is subdivision of UC, which is an independent entity that is a subdivision of the State. In case you have not followed that complexity, that means the UCLA athletic department has 3 levels of bosses on top off it, which it must obey. The second disconnect is Adidas, Nike and UA have contracts that are WAIT FOR IT, APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF REGENTS, SO FOR EXAMPLE, IT WAS THE BOARD OR REGENTS THAT SUED UA ON BEHALF OF UCLA and had to approve the settlement with UA. Third, NIL in this state actually is regulated by the State of California, not UCLA. UCLA and all colleges must comply and report to the Sate all NIL in accordance with SB 206.


"Here's a spoiler alert for the delusional - UCLA is leaving. The Regents will not stop it. You can talk with your next door neighbor who might be Michael Drake. Or maybe you go golfing with Gene Block. I don't know. It doesn't matter. My argument is simply contractual. For the Regents to affect a decision as to a school departing an athletic conference, it would step into litigation. Would UCLA have protested our stadium renovation if they knew the financing deal might ultimately force them to have to cover costs for us as the price for them leaving the P12? Because, ultimately, this is probably what is going to happen - an exit fee."

First this seems like an attempt to move the goal posts. Recall you said that the Regents had decided that UCLA was leaving and paying some sort of compensation. You just make that up, since it factually is not true. Second, there seems to be some sort of implicit acknowledgment that the Regents had done no such thing, but you have determined that really doesn't matter because UCLA signed a contract and the Regents is afraid of litigation. This concept continues your prior lack of understanding of how state and local government works. Yes, UCLA signed a contract with the B1G. Here is an earth shattering concept found in th Government Code and State Constitution, that the State can declare any contract made by a subdivision void or act in way that makes it illegal to enforce. Go back a look at who controls who controls who discussed above. Does the contracting party have recourse if the State or Regents acts in such a way? Yes, if the Regents or State approved the contact like in the case of Nike and other sponsors. Did that happen with the B1G? No. So your argument about contractual litigation and your spoiler alert are simply bullcrap. As for what the Regents is thinking about fairness I guess, the folks at Cal don't exactly see it that way you do.

Then it gets moronic:

"Honestly, what you and others who think the Regents can stop this after "fact finding" and "debate" - is wishful thinking. Do the Regents want to get sued by Nike for blocking the move. Because the move would generate more visibility and revenue for Nike. Certainly they would have a say, right? How about the Rose Bowl? Concessions? Ticket sales? And of course, the greater and more noble argument that to block this move would likely mean the end or reduction of Olympic sports at UCLA. Hmm...I wonder if the Regents really want to take that on. "

Wait, now the Regents is going to be sued by ....Nike? What contract or obligation does the Regents have with Nike regarding UCLA joining the B1G. ? Ignoring for the movement that the State has the right to make UCLA disappear, no less impair their actually existing contracts. How does the Board of Regents even been able to get into a contract with Nike about participation by UCLA in the B1G when UCLA didn't tell the Regents it was moving conferences? The early comments about regulatory taking are not the dumbest thing ever posted, this is. And then comes the Rose Bowl. The Pac 12 has a contract with the Rose Bowl that its 12 existing teams will go to the Rose Bowl if selected. Do I need to go further on this one? The Rose Bowl wants to have UCLA or USC face an eastern opponent, but the best selling scenario is UCLA vs USC. Clearly the contract will have to get revised when USC moves, but if UCLA has to stay in the Pac, the Rose Bowl is going to be estatic. Figure how many tickets get sold if its USC vs UCLA face off in the Rose Bowl game. The reduction of team sports is an argument not a legal matter- what happens if the Regents just takes a bunch of money away from UCLA and gives it to Cal. I know, UCLA will take it away from the football program so it can be less competitive, in order to save non-revenue sports at UCLA. This is called sarcasm - not gonna happen.


The arguments presented on this board for wanting to block UCLA's move is wishful thinking. Nothing more. Moreover the arguments I've seen on this board for Cal's inclusion into the Big 10 are also too hopeful. The narrative you are presenting is factual only in the context that you're dropping names and titles and they are telling you "we continue to investigate".

Bottom line is this. Everyone wishes we were more successful and thought of leaving first. But, we didn't. Chalk it up to poor or unfocused management. Who knows. But - everyone is mad because our lesser "sister school" is strengthening their position at the supposed expense of us. We are being left behind. And for us to say, "well then they need to cover our stadium costs because their departure will negatively impact the UC system" - its actually quite pathetic.

I'm going to let everyone else comment on this stuff since I don't find it even rises to the level of warranting a response.

---

You give far more weight to what the Regents can and cannot do. Approve or not approve. I really don't see it that way. UCLA sued UA. UCLA agreed on a settlement. The Regents approved/stamped it.

And I think you're still thinking about college football the old way. And as far as the Rose Bowl. Excuse me? The best matchup for the Rose Bowl is USC UCLA? Really? If UCLA stays put, the best match up for the Rose Bowl is USC UCLA?? Really??? You've lost the plot on that one.

Reduction of team sports. Excuse me but - isn't that one of UCLA's PRIME arguments? They are $100 million in debt and, in the face of a catastrophic budget deficit, they will have to reduce Olympic sports? Yeah, it may not be a legal argument (yet), but it is nevertheless one of the MAIN reasons UCLA decided to leave.

Lastly, I never said the exit fee had already happened. I said it was likely going to happen as the price for UCLA to leave. I appreciate you quoting the Cal Code for me. Quite nice. Some final thoughts...

I think I quoted the actual policy many months ago but, basically, it is UC policy that allows chancellors of UC campuses to enact their own contracts and inter conference athletic agreements. If memory serves, an LA Times article indicated that this had only happened twice in the last 50 years - where the Regents or a UC President has dictated or been asked by the Regents to nullify or modify a contractual decision made by a UC chancellor. In short, it never happens. And in our current case, it would set a very dangerous precedent. If they were to step in and stop the deal, then basically everything could be appealed to the Regents - from naming a building, to a loan agreement or...drum roll...a contract. Moreover, in theory, the Big 10 could sue the UC Regents for wrecking their new media deal which is predicated on UCLA's entry into the Big 10. Which is why, based on who I've talked with, they are leaning towards an exit fee. But this is also tenuous.

Can the Regents force UCLA to pay this?
Can the Regents reject or deny a legal business transaction made by UCLA?

I think the answers to both of these is no. But UCLA may relent and pay a fee that would likely go to us. Then again, what would all the other UC campuses say? Aren't they entitled to the money also? Which brings it back to us. As I see it, the only issue on the table for the Regents is how this affects Cal. How much revenue will Cal lose with UCLA's exit. And this is why, in my opinion, we are so desperate to be picked by the Big 10 because we all know that UCLAs exit cannot be stopped. The policy changes that were recommended at the Regents meeting in San Diego last month would modify the chancellor's authority. But it is based on future UC campus transactions. Again, it is all contractual

---

This argument started because you made the claim that the Regents could not legally block UCLA's move to the Big Ten and you used the regulatory taking legal theory. The criticism directed that comment was directed entirely at your legal analysis.

As others have said, there is a different between "will not" and "legally cannot." Look at what you said in response to the reduction of sports. You outright dismissed the reply it's not a legal argument. But that's literally the only thing being debated. Whether the law prevent the Regents from acting.

You continue to present arguments as to why the Regents will choose not to act, but then conclude by saying they cannot act. Stop conflating the words "can" and "will;" they do not mean the same thing.

---

I didn't know this was LA Law or Law and Order. I have said all along that the Regents will not stop UCLA from leaving. Now if you want to parse it out and say, "yeah you're right, but they could stop them if they wanted to". Ok, yeah, I have to concede that point. But can you all quit being brain dead and accept the reality of this??

The fact is that they won't. The 1991 policy change from the UC Regents allowed UC Chancellors broad discretion in who those campuses that they are in charge of to enter into contracts ON THEIR OWN. They don't need the Regents or the UC President's permission to do that. And that's the loophole! Don't you get it?

Any policy change that is debated is for future instances. Its not going to be retroactive. So, yes Perry Mason, the UC Regents can try and stop UCLA from leaving. But they won't. There. You feel better?

---

You said, "Any policy change that is debated is for future instances. Its (sic) but going to be retroactive."

You have no basis for this conclusion. And this is not a "may or could." You very clearly say that it any debate will only be for the future.

I think this is obviously wrong. Let's say UCLA entered into a contract with ISIS. People find out and throw a fit. Do you think the UC Regents are going to throw up their hands and say, "Damn, we delegated this responsibility! Drats! Well, next time we will be prepared." No, obviously not. The UC Regents will say, "You can't do this and aren't doing it."

Joining the Big 10 is obviously not a deal with ISIS. But if the Regents can prevent a deal with ISIS, they can prevent a deal with anyone. Including the Big 10.

Whether they will or not is another story. But they certainly can, which you seem to deny.

---

First, please do some research before you spout off about what I said and didn't say. This is a direct quote from Richard Leib, the UC Board Chair. who said the Regents were considering:a "proposal to bar the university president from delegating such authority (athletic conference decisions) if one UC campus' proposed athletics transaction would cause a sister campus a "material adverse financial impact" defined as 10% or greater of the operating revenue of the athletic department in question. The ban on delegating authority to campuses would also apply if a proposed deal would raise a "significant question" of university policy or create a "significant risk of reputational harm" to UC." Leib emphasized that this proposal was aimed at FUTURE CAMPUS ACTIONS. Ok? So that is the basis for my conclusion. A conclusion. THE conclusion. Get it?

Lastly, but perhaps as important - UC President Drake stated that though they were only informed of UCLA's decision to leave the Pac12 days before it was announced, UC officials followed "all policies, including one that allows the university president to delegate authority to chancellors to execute their own contracts (gee, I wonder how I could have thought of this), including intercollegiate athletic agreements."

I'll say it once, I'll say it again. Regents can try to block their exit. But they won't. Exit fee to us anyone?

---

I have read that same article you just plagiarized and it doesn't say what you think it does. The proposal would prevent the UC President from delegating that authority. That doesn't mean the UC Regents can't now prevent such a transaction. Again, they are not just going to throw up their hands at something they want to reverse and say, "Geeze, we can't do anything." The fact that it is currently being discussed for future actions only also does not mean that the Regents can't roll back the present one. And it doesn't matter what Leib says now on a proposal being discussed. If the proposal ever is formalized that aspect could change.

---

Golden One said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Nothing specific in terms of anything legal that would permit the Regents to block UCLA's move.

---

My God, brother, give it up. You've long since lost the argument. By continuing to drag this out you're only making a fool out of yourself.

Clearly, the Regents have total authority and the legal ability to stop UCLA from going to the Big Ten. I don't think there is any way they will do it, because they don't have the balls to do so. But clearly, there is no legal obstacle in their way. The Regents have ultimate authority over the UC system.

---

movielover said:

---

Has anyone detailed how UCLA athletics got so far in debt, and how Cal and Stanford avoided that?

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

LTbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

(its not a 100% given UCLA goes to the B1G)

---

Yes it is.

---

source?

---

MrGPAC said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

They did a lot of things wrong.

You cannot just poopooh the secrecy. This is a political organization; the manner in which one operates matters, especially when the people you pissed on have any authority over you.

Second, their move violates the rules around not harming other entities in the UC. This is undeniable.

So I think you are just wrong on this count. However, the question of what the Regents do about it is a big fat question mark. My own guess is they do something in the spectrum of just enough to give them cover to make it look like they did something ... to working behind the scenes to create pressure / environment in which Cal also gets an offer .... to making UCLA give up some of its money to Cal. Blocking UCLA seems to me to be the most unlikely action but on the flip side I do not see them making this much of a stink then doing absolutely nothing.

---

I think a LOT rides on two issues:

1) Whether or not Cal can get into the B1G
2) What kind of contract the Pac12/Cal can get without UCLA.

If Cal gets an invite to the B1G and UCLA can even claim they fought for it there will be no real damages other than ruffled feathers and they'll get nothing more than a scolding not to do it again.

The real fun comes with number 2. Lets assume that in all cases the Regents ask the Pac12 commissioner for two values, what they are getting, and what they would have gotten if UCLA had stayed in the Pac12.

Scenario A) The Pac12 gets an awful contract. If Cal would have gotten 50 million a year with UCLA, and are instead getting 20 million a year, I could very well see UCLA having to pay at least a portion of that.

Scenario B) The Pac12 gets an amazing contract. They leverage night games and streaming extremely well. Lets say the value without UCLA ends up being 50 million a year, and with goes to 75. Again, I could very well see UCLA having to pay at least a portion of that difference.

In either Scenario A or Scenario B, there is a possibility that once you add the travel costs and the damages the regents tack on to UCLA, that UCLA will be worse off than if they hadn't left. At that point, UCLA may even ask the Regents to block the move rather than institute monetary damages.

Scenario C) The Pac12 gets a decent contract, and the difference between with and without UCLA isn't very large. This is the most likely scenario. Cal gets ~45 million a year, would have gotten ~50 million a year had UCLA not left (with USC leaving being the real difference). Damages are minor and UCLA is happy to pay either a one time exit fee, or a small amount of damages.


In all reality, ALL of this is stuck hinging on what kind of contract whats left of the Pac12 can get. It sucks that the negotiations hinge so hard on this value, making the negotiations that much harder, but the B1G has NO motivation to jump at the remaining Pac12 schools until they know what they are bidding against. The B1G doesn't want to give the remaining Pac12 schools a full share, so they want to know just how much they have to offer to get any of the schools they are after. They did maximum damage going after the two highest value schools and are now sitting back taking their time on what to do next.

The regents don't know what the damages are yet and are likewise stuck sitting back waiting.

The sooner the pac12 gets contract offers in hand the better. Until then everything is just sitting in limbo.

---

boredom said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

They did a lot of things wrong.

You cannot just poopooh the secrecy. This is a political organization; the manner in which one operates matters, especially when the people you pissed on have any authority over you.

Second, their move violates the rules around not harming other entities in the UC. This is undeniable.

So I think you are just wrong on this count. However, the question of what the Regents do about it is a big fat question mark. My own guess is they do something in the spectrum of just enough to give them cover to make it look like they did something ... to working behind the scenes to create pressure / environment in which Cal also gets an offer .... to making UCLA give up some of its money to Cal. Blocking UCLA seems to me to be the most unlikely action but on the flip side I do not see them making this much of a stink then doing absolutely nothing.

---

I think a LOT rides on two issues:

1) Whether or not Cal can get into the B1G
2) What kind of contract the Pac12/Cal can get without UCLA.

If Cal gets an invite to the B1G and UCLA can even claim they fought for it there will be no real damages other than ruffled feathers and they'll get nothing more than a scolding not to do it again.

The real fun comes with number 2. Lets assume that in all cases the Regents ask the Pac12 commissioner for two values, what they are getting, and what they would have gotten if UCLA had stayed in the Pac12.

Scenario A) The Pac12 gets an awful contract. If Cal would have gotten 50 million a year with UCLA, and are instead getting 20 million a year, I could very well see UCLA having to pay at least a portion of that.

Scenario B) The Pac12 gets an amazing contract. They leverage night games and streaming extremely well. Lets say the value without UCLA ends up being 50 million a year, and with goes to 75. Again, I could very well see UCLA having to pay at least a portion of that difference.

In either Scenario A or Scenario B, there is a possibility that once you add the travel costs and the damages the regents tack on to UCLA, that UCLA will be worse off than if they hadn't left. At that point, UCLA may even ask the Regents to block the move rather than institute monetary damages.

Scenario C) The Pac12 gets a decent contract, and the difference between with and without UCLA isn't very large. This is the most likely scenario. Cal gets ~45 million a year, would have gotten ~50 million a year had UCLA not left (with USC leaving being the real difference). Damages are minor and UCLA is happy to pay either a one time exit fee, or a small amount of damages.


In all reality, ALL of this is stuck hinging on what kind of contract whats left of the Pac12 can get. It sucks that the negotiations hinge so hard on this value, making the negotiations that much harder, but the B1G has NO motivation to jump at the remaining Pac12 schools until they know what they are bidding against. The B1G doesn't want to give the remaining Pac12 schools a full share, so they want to know just how much they have to offer to get any of the schools they are after. They did maximum damage going after the two highest value schools and are now sitting back taking their time on what to do next.

The regents don't know what the damages are yet and are likewise stuck sitting back waiting.

The sooner the pac12 gets contract offers in hand the better. Until then everything is just sitting in limbo.

---

in all your scenarios, one of the two key numbers is made up by someone with a vested interest in a particular outcome. The commissioner can pretend he would've gotten any number if UCLA hadn't left and the regents have no way to check him nor to hold him to what he says. He's also presumably at that point incentivized to give a big number to 1. help Cal and 2. up his shot of keeping ucla.

---

Golden One said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Nothing specific in terms of anything legal that would permit the Regents to block UCLA's move.

---

My God, brother, give it up. You've long since lost the argument. By continuing to drag this out you're only making a fool out of yourself.

Clearly, the Regents have total authority and the legal ability to stop UCLA from going to the Big Ten. I don't think there is any way they will do it, because they don't have the balls to do so. But clearly, there is no legal obstacle in their way. The Regents have ultimate authority over the UC system.

---

nah bro. One of the things I love here is that there are so many posters here who prop their belief system regarding this issue on emotion. They want the Regents to do something. They want the status quo. They want the old rivalries to continue unabated. They think the Rose Bowl is just within reach. If we can just pay the coaches; build the facilities; get the coach we need (I heard someone mention Matt Ruhle. Really? Dude is 47-43. Sounds like Cal material to me.)

The Regents have the authority to stop this. But they won't. And the reason for that is because since 1991, they have given authority to UC Chancellors. So, in short, UCLA did nothing wrong. Apart from the secrecy of their deal with the Big 10, please tell me specifically what UCLA did wrong and what are the grounds for stopping their exit? Yes yes yes, we all know that UC maintains total authority over UC system. But if they followed UC protocol, tell me on what basis the Regents would stop them? Because they "can"? Yeah, that's a winner.

---

Thanks for finally conceding that "The Regents have the authority to stop this."

---

philbert said:

---

In a recent interview on the Canzano/Wilner podcast, Klaviokoff(?) said he was negotiating two scenarios with his media partners: one with fucla and one without. His numbers wouldn't be hard to verify since he works for the Pac12 presidents.

---

movielover said:

---

Has anyone detailed how UCLA athletics got so far in debt, and how Cal and Stanford avoided that?

---

calumnus said:

---

movielover said:

---

Has anyone detailed how UCLA athletics got so far in debt, and how Cal and Stanford avoided that?

---

The biggest issue is UCLA pays substantial rent for the Rose Bowl and surrounding golf course on game day Saturdays. Plus has significant expenses related to playing a hour away from campus. Cal and Stanford both have on campus stadiums with no capital expense on the athletics' departments' books. Stanford Athletics also has a multibillion dollar endowment, substantial income from its golf course and ownership in the Stanford Shopping Center. Stanford did a great job over the last 40 years of pioneering accepting donations in the form of highly appreciated stock to help donors avoid capital gains taxes but also get tax-write offs at market value.

---

OskiDeLaHoya said:

---

Might we hear some expansion news in the coming days?

I don't post often on Twitter but I lurk there for news and the chatter this week seems more than normal. It's all speculative, so I don't have any specific insider info to link. But a few things that caught my eye today:

1 - This Rick Neuheisel quote from ESPNU radio on SiriusXM this morning:

"I have it from sources that it's all but done in respects to Washington and Oregon" (to the BIG)

Rick Neuheisel on ESPN radio today

— Doug Scott (@DouglasTS) October 11, 2022

If you listen to the clip in the thread, he adds "potentially Stanford and Cal"

2- Matt Hayes had this article
https://saturdaytradition.com/big-ten-football/the-b1g-10-fire-his-son-iowas-kirk-ferentz-is-in-a-tough-spot-but-theres-little-choice/

Scroll down to no. 8, which had this tidbit:

Two separate industry sources have told me the Big Ten is deep into talks with Amazon to join the league's media rights group that includes Fox, CBS and NBC. The Big Ten needs Amazon to pay an estimated $320 million annually to make the 4 new teams whole ($80 million each) with the rest of the Big Ten in 2024.


3 - It's Big Ten Basketball media day today. Conference leaders are in Minneapolis. Among other things , they will be discussing next year's football scheduling and possibly doing away with divisions. But with all of them gathered together, could further expansion also be on the agenda?

Also - and take this with the largest grain of salt: the B1G Chief of Staff's Twitter account started following 700+ accounts in a matter of hours today. I checked his profile earlier in the day and he was following 9300 users. A couple of hours later he was following 10K+ users. He's at 10.2K now. I had read over the summer that he followed a lot of accounts around the time of the UCLA/USC move. The presumption was that he's looking for leaks.

Maybe adding/removing accounts is something he normally does (and I hadn't visited his profile recently to see if this is part of a pattern) but starting to follow 900+ accounts in one day seems like a sign. Take it for what it's worth.

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Every mansion needs a doormat.

---

6956bear said:

---

OskiDeLaHoya said:

---

Might we hear some expansion news in the coming days?

I don't post often on Twitter but I lurk there for news and the chatter this week seems more than normal. It's all speculative, so I don't have any specific insider info to link. But a few things that caught my eye today:

1 - This Rick Neuheisel quote from ESPNU radio on SiriusXM this morning:

"I have it from sources that it's all but done in respects to Washington and Oregon" (to the BIG)

Rick Neuheisel on ESPN radio today

— Doug Scott (@DouglasTS) October 11, 2022

If you listen to the clip in the thread, he adds "potentially Stanford and Cal"

2- Matt Hayes had this article
https://saturdaytradition.com/big-ten-football/the-b1g-10-fire-his-son-iowas-kirk-ferentz-is-in-a-tough-spot-but-theres-little-choice/

Scroll down to no. 8, which had this tidbit:

Two separate industry sources have told me the Big Ten is deep into talks with Amazon to join the league's media rights group that includes Fox, CBS and NBC. The Big Ten needs Amazon to pay an estimated $320 million annually to make the 4 new teams whole ($80 million each) with the rest of the Big Ten in 2024.


3 - It's Big Ten Basketball media day today. Conference leaders are in Minneapolis. Among other things , they will be discussing next year's football scheduling and possibly doing away with divisions. But with all of them gathered together, could further expansion also be on the agenda?

Also - and take this with the largest grain of salt: the B1G Chief of Staff's Twitter account started following 700+ accounts in a matter of hours today. I checked his profile earlier in the day and he was following 9300 users. A couple of hours later he was following 10K+ users. He's at 10.2K now. I had read over the summer that he followed a lot of accounts around the time of the UCLA/USC move. The presumption was that he's looking for leaks.

Maybe adding/removing accounts is something he normally does (and I hadn't visited his profile recently to see if this is part of a pattern) but starting to follow 900+ accounts in one day seems like a sign. Take it for what it's worth.

---

Yes that $320M number is needed to make them full share partners. But there are numerous reports that the 4 P12 schools would be willing to join with less than a full share to start. Also it is possible that the Big 10 would take just 2 additional schools for now. Which would make the annual payout by Amazon or anybody else less. There was a report just 2 weeks back that as little as $100M from Amazon could get a deal done. That would suggest that UW and UO would join for less than a full share.

There is an escalator clause in the current deal. It does allow for more money if the conference adds members. Most feel that clause is primarily in place to lure Notre Dame which is the big chip the conference desires. But apparently the clause does allow for some escalation if others join. How much is not publicly known but there are rumors it is higher than some believe.

The P12 cannot be excited that Amazon is the rumored partner in further Big 10 media rights talks. There is an expectation that a streamer will partner with a linear provider to create a larger P12 deal than a stand alone linear provider would offer. Some of the linear providers have streaming options. NBC has Peacock for example and could provide games on USA and CNBC as they do now with English Premier League soccer. Would NBC take the P12 over extending their ND deal? Seems unlikely to me, especially with them being part of the new Big 10 media deal.

There are some that still believe the Big 10 will add just 2 for now and try and leverage the 2 remaining slots to get Notre Dame to move. I am not in that camp. I believe ND stands pat for now.

The worst scenario for Cal is that the Big 10 adds UW and UO now and stops. That kills the P12. It makes any sort of TV deal less valuable for the networks. It could however trigger the regents to move decisively against UCLA which is something I think they would prefer to avoid.

If enough money is offered to add 4 teams I do believe Cal would be one of them. It makes sense for the Big 10 despite Cal not being a premier sports program. The market, location, academic profile etc are too hard for the Big 10 presidents to ignore. But it seems unlikely they would be offered a full share to join.

---