WalterSobchak 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.

---

I've read a lot of really stupid takes on this site over the years, but this may take the cake.

---

Really? Of all the sunshine takes on this site, you pick this one as the dumbest one? Clearly you are mistaken. And how is it wrong? How will the Regents stop UCLA?

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.

WalterSobchak said:

---

Did you sleep at a Holiday Inn last night?

---

I got a great nights sleep last night. How bout you?

At this point, the horse is out of the barn and the politicians are just trying to save face, hoping the Pac10 Commiss can complete a Hail Mary.

calfanz said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

WalterSobchak 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.

---

I've read a lot of really stupid takes on this site over the years, but this may take the cake.

---

Really? Of all the sunshine takes on this site, you pick this one as the dumbest one? Clearly you are mistaken. And how is it wrong? How will the Regents stop UCLA?

---

I don't know much.

But I do know wifesafurd.

He is in the top top echelon of BearInsiders in-the-know.

Most around here make off the cuff semi-educated guesses (look in the mirror) to connect the dots.

Posters like wifesafurd, SebastaBear, and BearGreg are the most solid no BS reliable sources regarding this stuff.

""It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Mark Twain"

---

I looked in the mirror like you said: It worked! Saw myself! Semi-educated guesses to connect the dots: That's me!

Big C said:

---

calfanz said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

WalterSobchak 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.

---

I've read a lot of really stupid takes on this site over the years, but this may take the cake.

---

Really? Of all the sunshine takes on this site, you pick this one as the dumbest one? Clearly you are mistaken. And how is it wrong? How will the Regents stop UCLA?

---

I don't know much.

But I do know wifesafurd.

He is in the top top echelon of BearInsiders in-the-know.

Most around here make off the cuff semi-educated guesses (look in the mirror) to connect the dots.

Posters like wifesafurd, SebastaBear, and BearGreg are the most solid no BS reliable sources regarding this stuff.

""It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Mark Twain"

---

I looked in the mirror like you said: It worked! Saw myself! Semi-educated guesses to connect the dots: That's me!

---

Great. They're connected. I get it. UCLA is still leaving. Nothing can stop it.

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

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?

socaltownie 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

---

You are willfully overlooking something that WIAF has pointed out - many (most?) contracts are not signed by the Chancellor - they are signed by the regents. Perhaps you don't know this but go look at who you signed your checks for your tuition to. It wasn't UCLA. It was to the regents. And when I have been paid by UC it has always been from the regents and, I believe, signed by the President.

As you point out, there HAS been delegation on conference affilations. Shame on the OoP for not thinking about the Pac12 as most of these decisions (and there are a lot more than 2) have been among the other schools who have moved around conferences as D2, D3 and non BCS football (Davis) have shifted over the years,.

Now many of us are likely to agree that the regents WONT stop the move. At the regents level they are often LOATH to micro manage (and that is what it will be seen as) campus affairs - especially around something as mundane and politically unsexy as spots.

The wrinkle in all this is the CMS debt (which is real debt - not like UCLA's interdepartmental debt) which falls upon the Regents _AND_ the most obvious way for CAL to solve that debt - reduce the number of in state slots to underpresented populations and increase for out of state/foreign students - a solution to the financial problem that the regents VERY MUCH care DEEPLY about.

Finally, one of the reasons that your posts have generated signifcant push back is that some of us have spent a LONG time understanding UC governance. Your posts suggest you have not and, more importantly, reflect sports journalism who really have mislead the pulbic on these issues to the detriment of an intelligent converation.

---

This is what I love about this board - how the arguments boil down to terms like "will", and "should", "can", "won't".

So - yeah. I remember back when I was at Cal back in the early 90s that I would write checks to "Regents of UC". Yeah, thanks for that. Did the UC Regents negotiate the deal with UnderArmour? With Nike? Hmm..I wonder who did? Were the Regents at the table when either deal was negotiated with NIke or UnderArmour? Ok, now that we've got that out of the way...

To be succinct on this - yeah - sorry my expertise on UC governance isn't as good as yours or others on this board. Ok. But I really don't have to be an expert to know that the Chancellors, at least since 1991, have broad discretion on entering into contracts, revenue, fundraising for the campus that they lead. This includes intercollegiate athletic arrangements. Do the Regents determine who UCLA plays? Do they determine or approve who UCLA names a building after? No.

So why would this be any different? Ah yes...because of Cal and our awful stadium debt. So, in effect, all that is left for the Regents to consider is how to offset lost revenue at Cal as a result of UCLA's departure. And, of course, how to prevent this from occurring in the future. For the Regents to stop UCLA from leaving, it would represent a massive shift in how business gets done.

As for reducing CMS debt - I do not support any reduction of admission slots to California students.

As for the journalism around these issues, legit question - how has sports journalism misled the public?

WalterSobchak 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?

---

---

This whole thing has mostly proven to me that some people always want to assume the worst and will not be shaken from that belief. Let them be.

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?

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.

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?

---

Quote:

---

[T]he regents discussed UCLA's plans in an open session.

In a crucial exchange, general counsel Charles Robinson made clear that the Regents had the authority to block the move by withdrawing the authority over conference membership delegated to each chancellor.

"For this particular matter, the regents could say 'We want to act and therefore we do not want the (UC) president or the (campus) chancellors to act in this area,' and simply assert that," Robinson said.

---

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/09/12/uc-regents-arent-done-with-ucla-place-big-ten-membership-on-the-agenda-for-september-meeting/

The question is not whether the UC Regents CAN block UCLA from going to the B1G, let's assume they can.

The question in my mind is still why would they? What is Cal's income with UCLA in the PAC-12 vs. uCLA gone? What is UCLA's income in the B1G vs in the PAC-12? What is the sum of incomes for the two schools in both situations?

The problem is, the benefit of UCLA leaving is kept by UCLA, but the cost of UCLA leaving (or benefit of UCLA staying) doesn't go to Cal alone, it is split among the other 9 PAC-10 members. It doesn't make sense for the Regents to keep UCLA from making a major improvement in its finances to prevent a much smaller loss in Cal's.

Everyone's time would be far better spent trying to get Cal INTO the B1G WITH UCLA and creating a new West Coast division.

Unless maybe Kliavkoff can pull a miracle major deal that UCLA will WANT to be part of, especially with playoff expansion, and UCLA needs the Regents to help them get out of their deal with the B1G.

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.

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."

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.

---

Your arguments are moronic and irrelevant. You also must've failed Subject A about 4 times. The truth is quite simple. UCLA, knowing the potential for problems with the Regents, decided against asking permission, and instead sought forgiveness. That's where things currently stand. Like you, I think UCLA will ultimately leave. Unlike you apparently, rather than getting me off, it makes me sad and angry.

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.

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.