philly1121 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

This is only quasi right. Yes. This power was delegated but largely intended to deal with movement at the d2 and d3 levels. The better analogy is the creation of entire schools and academic units which is very much overseen by the regents to ensure that one school does not harm another and that there is adequate incremental demand and support. Happy to cite numerous examples should you wish to get deep into the weeds of inter campus fights

---

Then if I were UCLA I would want an absolute quantifiable number as to how Cal will specifically be hurt financially. Ticket sales for all revenue and non-revenue athletic events, apparel, media rights, recruiting. I think this should also be done for any UC that tries to schedule UCLA for any sport.

As far as reputational harm, this one seems a bit dubious. How would Cal or any other UC school OR any other Pac12 school have their reputation diminished by UCLA leaving? Recruiting seems to be the obvious one, no? It seems, though I know most of this board engages in innocent sh*t talking about our rivals. But it also seems like we don't really have any regard for other UC schools or their academic quality. So I'm really not quite sure why we are crying about this.

The other factor is - UCLA's other sports. So, we are basically asking the Regents to stop a move that could potentially solve all the financial problems of UCLA's non revenue sports - to save OUR sports. That's a tough one. If the media rights deal that's coming would show that we would be getting nearly as much as the Big 10 WITH UCLA and SC in the conference, I could see an argument for staying. But it does not appear to be that way. Who knows though.

---

See the analogy from another about a division within a company making demands of the BoD. UCLA can pound sand with their demands. They made their bed now they can lay in it. It likely won't happen but I hope the barehands really sticks it to them.

Sebastabear said:

---

Quote:

---

Anything more - UCLA will argue is punitive and likely sue the Regents.

---

I'm not sure why people keep saying this. UCLA is not some independent entIty. UCLA is controlled and governed by the Regents. UCLA can no more sue the regents than a division of a company can sue its own board of directors or your foot can sue your brain. The Regents could fire the UCLA Chancellor tomorrow and replace them with whoever they wanted. And I guarantee new guy wouldn't be bringing any lawsuits against his boss. Moreover whatever powers the Regents have delegated to the individual universities they can take back, including retroactively.

The Regents decide. If they decide UCLA is staying in the PAC 12 or that UCLA owes Cal a trillion dollars or UCLA has to change its name to "Song Stealer U" then that's exactly what will happen. Big 10 could sue over UCLA backing out of the deal. UCLA cannot.

---

That's a great idea! I just wrote a letter to the Regents, recommending that they change UCLA's name to "Song Stealer U"!

BigDaddy said:

---

love the typo...

"membershipo"

---

Well, I guess it's better than membersh$t.

Call me cyniCAL, but I'm skeptiCAL that the regents block the move. Maybe they dock UCLA some money and perhaps defrock some of the UCLA admin. I think the Regents are waiting for the election to pass and will ultimately conclude its not worth getting in a lawsuit with the B1G and/or pissing of UCLA fans and donors.

Spitballing, I think B1G could have a decent legal claim if UCLA/Regents abrogate any signed agreement(s). The UCLA AD and chancellor had apparent (and seemingly explicit) authority to sign whatever they signed per the then UC existing policy. Admittedly, its complicated. But I don't think its as simple as the Regents taking the position they are not bound by the agreement(s) and can simply ignore/terminate them.

Only qualifier - maybe B1G doesn't care if UCLA comes? I assume USC was the real prize. In that case, maybe there's an agreement to let UCLA go.

Maybe? Ya think?

sycasey said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.

I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.

In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.

---

If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?

---

This is the first time I've read that Furd would leave if UCLA returns. What's the logic there?

---

The logic is just people making stuff up.

---

The logic is that SC need a companion (and probably was promised one) and Stanford leaving for the B!G would not require government approval, unlike with the State schools. For those that think Washington or Oregon can just leave behind the other state school, that sentiment is wrong.

Money talks, even at Furd. Whether a 100% share in the B1G does that depends on the PAC media contract.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.

I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.

In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.

---

If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?

---

This is the first time I've read that Furd would leave if UCLA returns. What's the logic there?

---

The logic is just people making stuff up.

---

The logic is that SC need a companion (and probably was promised one) and Stanford leaving for the B!G would not require government approval, unlike with the State schools. For those that think Washington or Oregon can just leave behind the other state school, that sentiment is wrong.

Money talks, even at Furd. Whether a 100% share in the B1G does that depends on the PAC media contract.

---

The original statement was that if the Regents block UCLA, the B1G will come after Stanford. I think that is almost certain. Maybe Cal and Stanford (with UCLA) if the Regents haven't completely pissed off the B1G. That is my concern with this action. We need to push for what we want, more than just being obstructionist.

You then raise the secondary but very interesting question, if UCLA is blocked and the B1G comes after only Stanford, would Stanford go? My sense is no, they don't need the money, they don't like the NIL era and their other sports and Directors' Cups are even more important to them than at Cal, but you never know. If they go, I think it would be more for the prestige than than the money.

BearGoggles said:

---

Call me cyniCAL, but I'm skeptiCAL that the regents block the move. Maybe they dock UCLA some money and perhaps defrock some of the UCLA admin. I think the Regents are waiting for the election to pass and will ultimately conclude its not worth getting in a lawsuit with the B1G and/or pissing of UCLA fans and donors.

Spitballing, I think B1G could have a decent legal claim if UCLA/Regents abrogate any signed agreement(s). The UCLA AD and chancellor had apparent (and seemingly explicit) authority to sign whatever they signed per the then UC existing policy. Admittedly, its complicated. But I don't think its as simple as the Regents taking the position they are not bound by the agreement(s) and can simply ignore/terminate them.

Only qualifier - maybe B1G doesn't care if UCLA comes? I assume USC was the real prize. In that case, maybe there's an agreement to let UCLA go.

---

A sober assessment. Unlike others.

Your last point is a good one. As traditions wane, I suppose the B1G wanted USC to have a dance partner. But USC is the prize here. Any exit fee is going to depend on the drop in value of the new media rights deal that USC and UCLA's exit will cause. USC is the important player here. UCLA not so much in terms of media rights.

If the doesn't fit, …

San Diego is the only expansion entity that makes sense for the PAC 12 if both SC and UCLA leave. That gives you 11 schools. You can move to an 8 game in conference season, and that would be 44 conference games of revenue. Plus the other 44 non-conference games of revenue - 88 total games. SDS would be the reason for 8 of those additional games which matters..

With the 11 teams vying for a conference title - rivals are not really as relevant. I would guess Cal and Stanford would be natural rivals, but who cares really. You do not need to add a 12 team. 88 games of football are about what is needed to keep 13 weeks of a season going with 6 or 7 games per week. I think they would all spread the non-conference games out over the year to keep inventory through the season instead off flooding the PAC 12 network at the beginning of the year with a ton of game no one watches and we have all the non-conference games out of the way by week 3. I am sure the Mountain West or other conferences would like to spread their inventory out as well. There is no reason that the first 3 weeks of the season has 40-50% of the TV inventory for a conference.

For basketball they would bring in Gonzaga and still have the 12 teams. They would obviously get a smaller share of the revenue pot - but that probably makes the Amazon deal more attractive since they want college sports all year long and not just football - unlike ESPN or Fox.

Also - adding SDS is probably the only one where eventually you could see them being a net additive in money. Not this year but eventually. Maybe they start at a lower percentage and grow.

I would prefer a different approach - take Kansas, Okie State, TTU and TCU. But I think that ship has clearly sailed.

If we do not take SDS, they will get a reduced deal from the Big 12 to move there and they definitely will do that. I doubt Gonzaga would want to do that - they are just meeting them to put pressure on the PAC 12 is my guess.

philly1121 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

This is only quasi right. Yes. This power was delegated but largely intended to deal with movement at the d2 and d3 levels. The better analogy is the creation of entire schools and academic units which is very much overseen by the regents to ensure that one school does not harm another and that there is adequate incremental demand and support. Happy to cite numerous examples should you wish to get deep into the weeds of inter campus fights

---

Then if I were UCLA I would want an I think this should also be done for any UC that tries to schedule UCLA for any sport.

As far as reputational harm, this one seems a bit dubious. How would Cal or any other UC school OR any other Pac12 school have their reputation diminished by UCLA leaving? Recruiting seems to be the obvious one, no? It seems, though I know most of this board engages in innocent sh*t talking about our rivals. But it also seems like we don't really have any regard for other UC schools or their academic quality. So I'm really not quite sure why we are crying about this.

The other factor is - UCLA's other sports. So, we are basically asking the Regents to stop a move that could potentially solve all the financial problems of UCLA's non revenue sports - to save OUR sports. That's a tough one. If the media rights deal that's coming would show that we would be getting nearly as much as the Big 10 WITH UCLA and SC in the conference, I could see an argument for staying. But it does not appear to be that way. Who knows though.

---

See the analogy from another about a division within a company making demands of the BoD. UCLA can pound sand with their demands. They made their bed now they can lay in it. It likely won't happen but I hope the barehands really sticks it to them.

---

Come on bro. You know that is a rubbish analogy. UCLA is making zero demand here. They have already made a decision. It is the Regents and all of you that are making demands. UCLA has already made their move.

---

Reading comprehension, please. YOUR post hypothesized UCLA making demands -

"..absolute quantifiable number as to how Cal will specifically be hurt financially. Ticket sales for all revenue and non-revenue athletic events, apparel, media rights, recruiting."

They don't get to demand anything from the Regents/Cal

Oski87 said:

---

San Diego is the only expansion entity that makes sense for the PAC 12 if both SC and UCLA leave. That gives you 11 schools. You can move to an 8 game in conference season, and that would be 44 conference games of revenue. Plus the other 44 non-conference games of revenue - 88 total games. SDS would be the reason for 8 of those additional games which matters..

With the 11 teams vying for a conference title - rivals are not really as relevant. I would guess Cal and Stanford would be natural rivals, but who cares really. You do not need to add a 12 team. 88 games of football are about what is needed to keep 13 weeks of a season going with 6 or 7 games per week. I think they would all spread the non-conference games out over the year to keep inventory through the season instead off flooding the PAC 12 network at the beginning of the year with a ton of game no one watches and we have all the non-conference games out of the way by week 3. I am sure the Mountain West or other conferences would like to spread their inventory out as well. There is no reason that the first 3 weeks of the season has 40-50% of the TV inventory for a conference.

For basketball they would bring in Gonzaga and still have the 12 teams. They would obviously get a smaller share of the revenue pot - but that probably makes the Amazon deal more attractive since they want college sports all year long and not just football - unlike ESPN or Fox.

Also - adding SDS is probably the only one where eventually you could see them being a net additive in money. Not this year but eventually. Maybe they start at a lower percentage and grow.

I would prefer a different approach - take Kansas, Okie State, TTU and TCU. But I think that ship has clearly sailed.

If we do not take SDS, they will get a reduced deal from the Big 12 to move there and they definitely will do that. I doubt Gonzaga would want to do that - they are just meeting them to put pressure on the PAC 12 is my guess.

---

Excellent post. Even numbers is a byproduct of conference divisions and championship games. That model is dying, if not dead.

11 teams with 8 conference games is a very smart way to build the conferences' profile. It lets every team buy 3-4 non-conference wins, which ultimately means more ranked teams, more bowl teams, etc., which ultimately means more ratings and more money in subsequent tv deals.

And more empty seats because games mean nothing through all of September.

Cool.

where 12 is just a serving suggestion

sosheezy said:

---

Source: San Diego State is expected to join the Pac 12. Announcement could be made as early as this week. #SDSU #Aztecs pic.twitter.com/o1n6YkTLKN

— Dan Patrick Show (@dpshow) November 7, 2022

---

This would be interesting. If you expand SDSU is the logical west coast add. But this week does not fit the timeline Kliavkoff put forth regarding media rights. He said the TV deal would come first. With the regents meeting next week and this new rumor the media rights deal could be close. At least in terms of the numbers to present to the school presidenst and chancellors.

sosheezy said:

---

Source: San Diego State is expected to join the Pac 12. Announcement could be made as early as this week. #SDSU #Aztecs pic.twitter.com/o1n6YkTLKN

— Dan Patrick Show (@dpshow) November 7, 2022

---

Re: the report about the Pac-12 announcing the addition of SDSU as soon as this week, a source close to the situation tells @TheAthletic that the report is inaccurate.

It's been my understanding that the Pac-12 will do its media deal first before any conference expansion.

— Nicole Auerbach (@NicoleAuerbach) November 7, 2022

Probably more like 2-3 weeks away from expansion news. UC Regents meeting first, media deal second, expansion announcement third. Assuming SDSU $'s would be figured pre-deal, so would be added pro-rata to the media deal (and potentially would be at a discount?)

socaltownie said:

---

6956bear said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

Source: San Diego State is expected to join the Pac 12. Announcement could be made as early as this week. #SDSU #Aztecs pic.twitter.com/o1n6YkTLKN

— Dan Patrick Show (@dpshow) November 7, 2022

---

This would be interesting. If you expand SDSU is the logical west coast add. But this week does not fit the timeline Kliavkoff put forth regarding media rights. He said the TV deal would come first. With the regents meeting next week and this new rumor the media rights deal could be close. At least in terms of the numbers to present to the school presidenst and chancellors.

---

Hmmmmm.....

1) Regents have indicated to Kliavkoff that there are the votes there to stop the move
2) In ancipation of keeping at 12 he is set to bring SDSU in almost immediately following.
3) Suddenly he keeps the LA tv market (albeit USC bigger draw) and ADDS San Diego.

That would be some ****ing brilliant three dimensional chess and is the elegant solution.

---

This is pure hopeful speculation.

tequila4kapp said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

6956bear said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

Source: San Diego State is expected to join the Pac 12. Announcement could be made as early as this week. #SDSU #Aztecs pic.twitter.com/o1n6YkTLKN

— Dan Patrick Show (@dpshow) November 7, 2022

---

This would be interesting. If you expand SDSU is the logical west coast add. But this week does not fit the timeline Kliavkoff put forth regarding media rights. He said the TV deal would come first. With the regents meeting next week and this new rumor the media rights deal could be close. At least in terms of the numbers to present to the school presidenst and chancellors.

---

Hmmmmm.....

1) Regents have indicated to Kliavkoff that there are the votes there to stop the move
2) In ancipation of keeping at 12 he is set to bring SDSU in almost immediately following.
3) Suddenly he keeps the LA tv market (albeit USC bigger draw) and ADDS San Diego.

That would be some ****ing brilliant three dimensional chess and is the elegant solution.

---

4. screws USC

---

Doesn't screw USC at all. They've wanted out of the league for years, were prepared to join the B1G alone and felt at the time there was incredible cache to be the only B1G team on the West Coast.

If UCLA was blocked was moving to the B1G, I would expect Stanford to be approached, or perhaps USC would work on convincing Notre Dame to join them now, rather than later.

Either way, they don't care. USC will be in the B1G in 2024 and cashing big checks.

Oski87 said:

---

San Diego is the only expansion entity that makes sense for the PAC 12 if both SC and UCLA leave. That gives you 11 schools. You can move to an 8 game in conference season, and that would be 44 conference games of revenue. Plus the other 44 non-conference games of revenue - 88 total games. SDS would be the reason for 8 of those additional games which matters..

With the 11 teams vying for a conference title - rivals are not really as relevant. I would guess Cal and Stanford would be natural rivals, but who cares really. You do not need to add a 12 team. 88 games of football are about what is needed to keep 13 weeks of a season going with 6 or 7 games per week. I think they would all spread the non-conference games out over the year to keep inventory through the season instead off flooding the PAC 12 network at the beginning of the year with a ton of game no one watches and we have all the non-conference games out of the way by week 3. I am sure the Mountain West or other conferences would like to spread their inventory out as well. There is no reason that the first 3 weeks of the season has 40-50% of the TV inventory for a conference.

For basketball they would bring in Gonzaga and still have the 12 teams. They would obviously get a smaller share of the revenue pot - but that probably makes the Amazon deal more attractive since they want college sports all year long and not just football - unlike ESPN or Fox.

Also - adding SDS is probably the only one where eventually you could see them being a net additive in money. Not this year but eventually. Maybe they start at a lower percentage and grow.

I would prefer a different approach - take Kansas, Okie State, TTU and TCU. But I think that ship has clearly sailed.

If we do not take SDS, they will get a reduced deal from the Big 12 to move there and they definitely will do that. I doubt Gonzaga would want to do that - they are just meeting them to put pressure on the PAC 12 is my guess.

---

Can we please call it SDSU? They do not go by SDS, and they do not go by San Diego.

BigDaddy said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

6956bear said:

---

sosheezy said:

---

Source: San Diego State is expected to join the Pac 12. Announcement could be made as early as this week. #SDSU #Aztecs pic.twitter.com/o1n6YkTLKN

— Dan Patrick Show (@dpshow) November 7, 2022

---

This would be interesting. If you expand SDSU is the logical west coast add. But this week does not fit the timeline Kliavkoff put forth regarding media rights. He said the TV deal would come first. With the regents meeting next week and this new rumor the media rights deal could be close. At least in terms of the numbers to present to the school presidenst and chancellors.

---

Hmmmmm.....

1) Regents have indicated to Kliavkoff that there are the votes there to stop the move
2) In ancipation of keeping at 12 he is set to bring SDSU in almost immediately following.
3) Suddenly he keeps the LA tv market (albeit USC bigger draw) and ADDS San Diego.

That would be some ****ing brilliant three dimensional chess and is the elegant solution.

---

4. screws USC

---

Doesn't screw USC at all. They were prepared to join the B1G and felt at the time there was incredible cache to be the only B1G team on the West Coast.

If UCLA was blocked was moving to the B1G, I would expect Stanford to be approached, or perhaps USC would work on convincing Notre Dame to join them now, rather than later.

Either way, they don't care. USC will be in the B1G in 2024 and cashing big checks.

---

of course it hurts SC. They would t have a single conference opponent in the same time zone

I seriously doubt Furd would go. They'd be 1 of 2, which means travel, and they seem to have heartburn over the compensation model the big 10 It's moving toward

The only reason I can see for the Regents to veto the UCLA move is to try to lever the Big Ten into inviting Cal. But would that work? Would the Big Ten simply take Oregon or Washington instead of UCLA? And does the Cal administration care about being in the Big Ten? This isn't a question of investment. Despite all the rhetoric, the Big Ten is not any more challenging a conference than the Pac-12 (there are plenty of patsies in the Big Ten, with my school, Rutgers, being one of them) but would the Cal administration balk at the travel necessary unless Stanford, Washington and Oregon come in , too?

I doubt Cal wants to be in the same conference as SDSU. SDSU is supposed to be part of the second tier of California higher education institutions, and the last thing that the University of California wants is for the California State University to be considered on the same level.

My uninformed guess from 3000 miles away? The Regents will allow the move but make UCLA pay Cal some money to reimburse Cal for the loss caused by losing UCLA and USC as opponents. The Pac-12 will be the Pac-10 because there isn't an adequate financial incentive for Colorado, Utah, Arizona, or Arizona State to move to the Big 12. But, like I say, I'm 3000 miles away.

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

San Diego is the only expansion entity that makes sense for the PAC 12 if both SC and UCLA leave. That gives you 11 schools. You can move to an 8 game in conference season, and that would be 44 conference games of revenue. Plus the other 44 non-conference games of revenue - 88 total games. SDS would be the reason for 8 of those additional games which matters..

With the 11 teams vying for a conference title - rivals are not really as relevant. I would guess Cal and Stanford would be natural rivals, but who cares really. You do not need to add a 12 team. 88 games of football are about what is needed to keep 13 weeks of a season going with 6 or 7 games per week. I think they would all spread the non-conference games out over the year to keep inventory through the season instead off flooding the PAC 12 network at the beginning of the year with a ton of game no one watches and we have all the non-conference games out of the way by week 3. I am sure the Mountain West or other conferences would like to spread their inventory out as well. There is no reason that the first 3 weeks of the season has 40-50% of the TV inventory for a conference.

For basketball they would bring in Gonzaga and still have the 12 teams. They would obviously get a smaller share of the revenue pot - but that probably makes the Amazon deal more attractive since they want college sports all year long and not just football - unlike ESPN or Fox.

Also - adding SDS is probably the only one where eventually you could see them being a net additive in money. Not this year but eventually. Maybe they start at a lower percentage and grow.

I would prefer a different approach - take Kansas, Okie State, TTU and TCU. But I think that ship has clearly sailed.

If we do not take SDS, they will get a reduced deal from the Big 12 to move there and they definitely will do that. I doubt Gonzaga would want to do that - they are just meeting them to put pressure on the PAC 12 is my guess.

---

Can we please call it SDSU? They do not go by SDS, and they do not go by San Diego.

---

And "San Diego" is a different school, one that plays football at the FCS level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Toreros

gardenstatebear said:

---

The only reason I can see for the Regents to veto the UCLA move is to try to lever the Big Ten into inviting Cal. But would that work? Would the Big Ten simply take Oregon or Washington instead of UCLA? And does the Cal administration care about being in the Big Ten? This isn't a question of investment. Despite all the rhetoric, the Big Ten is not any more challenging a conference than the Pac-12 (there are plenty of patsies in the Big Ten, with my school, Rutgers, being one of them) but would the Cal administration balk at the travel necessary unless Stanford, Washington and Oregon come in , too?

I doubt Cal wants to be in the same conference as SDSU. SDSU is supposed to be part of the second tier of California higher education institutions, and the last thing that the University of California wants is for the California State University to be considered on the same level.

My uninformed guess from 3000 miles away? The Regents will allow the move but make UCLA pay Cal some money to reimburse Cal for the loss caused by losing UCLA and USC as opponents. The Pac-12 will be the Pac-10 because there isn't an adequate financial incentive for Colorado, Utah, Arizona, or Arizona State to move to the Big 12. But, like I say, I'm 3000 miles away.

---

A big if but what if the Regents look at the numbers with UCLA and agree with Kliavkoff that the incremental money being added isn't enough to justify the move. If what Kliavkoff is saying is true, couldn't this, coupled with everything Walton has said + climate impact be enough to block the move?

tequila4kapp said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Call me cyniCAL, but I'm skeptiCAL that the regents block the move. Maybe they dock UCLA some money and perhaps defrock some of the UCLA admin. I think the Regents are waiting for the election to pass and will ultimately conclude its not worth getting in a lawsuit with the B1G and/or pissing of UCLA fans and donors.

Spitballing, I think B1G could have a decent legal claim if UCLA/Regents abrogate any signed agreement(s). The UCLA AD and chancellor had apparent (and seemingly explicit) authority to sign whatever they signed per the then UC existing policy. Admittedly, its complicated. But I don't think its as simple as the Regents taking the position they are not bound by the agreement(s) and can simply ignore/terminate them.

Only qualifier - maybe B1G doesn't care if UCLA comes? I assume USC was the real prize. In that case, maybe there's an agreement to let UCLA go.

---

Come on, the regents aren't that dumb. They have attorneys, too. They'd simply say something like UCLA can go…oh by the way, we are choosing to reduce our discretionary spending by 60m a year. UCLA can't sue the regents. B1G would have no case against the regents. Good luck

---

You're missing the point. My post was in relation to having UCLA stay in the Pac-XX and breach/repudiate its agreements with B1G. Of course B1G doesn't sue if UCLA honors that agreement and joins the B1G (which is your scenario, not mine).

You're response about letting UCLA go and cutting their funding by $60M is a totally different scenario and in fact is consistent with what I said (i.e., "maybe they dock UCLA some money" but don't block the move). And for the record, I think there's no way they dock UCLA anywhere near that yearly amount.

Exactly. $60 million per year? Dream on. It will likely be $60 million tops for the whole life of the new media rights deal. USC brought all the money to the Pac 10, now 12. They got mistreated by Larry Scott - whose mismanagement has led us to this - and now they are saying eff you to the conference. As for the travel if UCLA doesn't come - I'm sure they don't care.

UCLA's chancellor 2011: Yes, Larry, that TV deal looks great! We should definitely chase the money at the expense of exposure. (And by the way, I want you to lead the Pac-12 as long as possible.)

UCLA fans 2022: Our TV exposure sucks, this is why we're leaving.

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) November 7, 2022

philbert said:

---

UCLA's chancellor 2011: Yes, Larry, that TV deal looks great! We should definitely chase the money at the expense of exposure. (And by the way, I want you to lead the Pac-12 as long as possible.)

UCLA fans 2022: Our TV exposure sucks, this is why we're leaving.

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) November 7, 2022

---

Wilner is throwing some serious shade today.

berserkeley said:

---

philbert said:

---

UCLA's chancellor 2011: Yes, Larry, that TV deal looks great! We should definitely chase the money at the expense of exposure. (And by the way, I want you to lead the Pac-12 as long as possible.)

UCLA fans 2022: Our TV exposure sucks, this is why we're leaving.

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) November 7, 2022

---

Wilner is throwing some serious shade today.

---

I don't get it.

UCLA (or Cal fans) have to agree with the stupid support of Larry Scott by our chancellors a decade ago?

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

I'm probably in the minority here, but after thinking about the situation for the last several months, I hope the PAC (at least the 10 schools remaining) stays together. Maybe the Southern Branch changes its mind and SC is replaced by SD St. which would work out well by keeping regional rivalries. Alternatively, Southern Branch leaves and is replaced by UNLV, which expands the conference footprint to a growing metropolitan area.

I agree with Pawlawski who said this will hurt Southern Branch recruiting, particularly in the Bay Area. Parents will have to travel far to see their kids play. Tickets to many of the games (played in the midwest, will be expensive. Players can come to Cal where parents can watch their kids play home games close to home and travel to any other conference game for less the $200. And they won't have to worry about the impact of extensive traveling on their kids' academics.

In the meantime, the PAC should screw SC (and Southern Branch if it leaves) but not permitting its members to play them. Let them travel farther for OOC games or else play the likes of SJ State and Fresno.

---

If UCLA were to return to the Pac then Stanford would most likely be leaving. San Diego State makes sense to replace USC, but who would we replace Stanford with? San Jose State?

---

Under that scenario Cal should be the Bay Area rep paired with UCLA as California"rivals" with the UCLA-USC game and Big Game traditions continuing as last game of the year OOC games.

I'd vote for staying as the PAC-10. 2 schools from each state. Better path to the CFP.

However, if we expand and add San Diego State, add UNLV or here is a wild idea: maybe an expansion franchise: UC San Diego. Largest UC campus, great academics, wants to move to D1, can share Snapdragon with San Diego St. and would be natural rivals. The Chargers left so no NFL. San Diego would be firmly PAC-12 territory. It would give the PAC-12 another warm weather location for night games, which is a selling point for the TV contract(s) and fits with tge San Diego lifestyle (plenty to do doing the day).

---

UCSD creating a football team, let alone a D1 football team is a fairytale. Some sports are in the Big West.

The best additions for the Pac are SDSU and UNLV. You bring SDSU in for Southern Cali and UNLV in for Nevada recruiting. They aren't natural rivals but - SO WHAT? Rivalries no longer matter in college football.

---

Agree re rivalries. The question is do SDSU and UNLV bring media and other revenues? I think SDSU does/can. Not sure about Vegas though that has been an attractive market for NHL and NFL. Is Vegas a valuable media market?

---

Vegas is not a big media market. 40th largest in the United States.

I don't think UNLV brings much at all.

---

Birmingham is the 45th largest media market and Alabama is probably a pretty attractive addition.

It is not ONLY about media market size.

I would say UNLV is a decent market. I mean, when Tarkanian was running the show in basketball they became a household name.

That said, isn't the Nevada school with the better football program in Reno?

---

Nevada is also the academic flagship.