https://www.si.com/college/ucla/news/uc-regents-allude-to-action-against-ucla-regarding-big-ten-move

"The University of California Office of the President, in partnership with UCLA, administered a survey of over 600 student-athletes to gauge their opinions on the move to the Big Ten, earning 111 responses. 77% of respondents were concerned about the increased travel times that will come along with the move, while 66% were concerned about missed class times.

Of the women who responded to the survey, 46% were worried about an impact on mental health and 54% were worried about an impact on physical health, but only 16% of the men who responded shared those concerns."

I wonder if the SC athletes feel the same way towards UCLA. It might depend a little on the sport. Growing up in LA, I thought that SC football fans cared more about Notre Dame and Cal than UCLA.

Some of that is due to us not having been in the same division as SC for a while.

Some of it is that their games against us are meaningless to them. Easy W. Think someone in the B1G playing Indiana. Irrelevant.

We should have never agreed to be in a different division or we should have never insisted on the guaranteed LA games (losses).

Anyway, UCLA's move means impact to academics, more travel/climate change issues, negative impact to another UC. Hopefully the Regents do something meaningful.

Just goes to show how rivalries go to die if they become irrelevant. I am old, born in the 50s and my dad always worried about the Bears and never UCLA. In fact maybe it was only 20 years ago I heard that there was a football trophy, the victory bell that has been awarded to the winner between SC and UCLA and I had never heard of nor had anyone in my family all USC fans.

I am not sure that the Cal Stanford rivalry is that important anymore, at least in football. During Tedford, I would hear fans talk of the importance of beating USC and how that was all important compared to Stanford. When Stanford started beating us like a drum, it came back a little.

philly1121 said:

---

Chabbear said:

---

. . .

I have 3 cousins that went to SC in the early 2000s. They don't care about Cal. They care about UCLA, Notre Dame and Stanford.

---

---

Ucla was the rival.
ND was about prestige.
Stanford was about Coach Hairball and the farm kicking $uSC's aszz every year for a decade. It made Coach Pete shrill and caused him to cheat.

joe amos yaks said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Chabbear said:

---

. . .

I have 3 cousins that went to SC in the early 2000s. They don't care about Cal. They care about UCLA, Notre Dame and Stanford.

---

---

Ucla was the rival.
ND was about prestige.
Stanford was about Coach Hairball and the farm kicking $uSC's aszz every year for a decade. It make Coach Pete shrill and caused him to cheat.

---

I think Stanford is also about USC alums claiming they would have been accepted at Stanford if they'd applied, but they couldn't bear to leave LA . . . yeah, right.

The alluding of action by the Regents isn't enough.

Rumor going around is that the Regents are offering UCLA a no interest $100 million dollar "loan"... would not have to be repaid... to convince them to reverse course and remain in the Pac-12

Indicates to me that the Regents don't think they can stop them and are trying to get UCLA to say 'No' to B1G membership. Seems like a long shot. Contracts are already signed and they're looking at a bigger payday if they go to the B1G.

BigDaddy said:

---

Rumor going around is that the Regents are offering UCLA a no interest $100 million dollar "loan"... would not have to be repaid... to convince them to reverse course and remain in the Pac-12

Indicates to me that the Regents don't think they can stop them and are trying to get UCLA to say 'No' to B1G membership. Seems like a long shot. Contracts are already signed and they're looking at a bigger payday if they go to the B1G.

---

IIRC they already publicly said they do have the power.

Allowing UCLA to leave wouldn't address the impact to climate change, impact to students or impact to Cal.

This type of deal - assuming it is even true - feels more like the type of thing that is negotiated behind the scenes where one party (UCLA) realizes they made a decision they'd like a do-over on, and both parties realize a face saving solution makes everyone look better. In other words, the "offer" would be merely a formality...they'd have already agreed this was the solution.

Rushinbear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

Rumor going around is that the Regents are offering UCLA a no interest $100 million dollar "loan"... would not have to be repaid... to convince them to reverse course and remain in the Pac-12

Indicates to me that the Regents don't think they can stop them and are trying to get UCLA to say 'No' to B1G membership. Seems like a long shot. Contracts are already signed and they're looking at a bigger payday if they go to the B1G.

---

IIRC they already publicly said they do have the power.

Allowing UCLA to leave wouldn't address the impact to climate change, impact to students or impact to Cal.

This type of deal - assuming it is even true - feels more like the type of thing that is negotiated behind the scenes where one party (UCLA) realizes they made a decision they'd like a do-over on, and both parties realize a face saving solution makes everyone look better. In other words, the "offer" would be merely a formality...they'd have already agreed this was the solution.

---

What about the hc, ad and chancellor? Ya gonna let them off for total mismanagement?

Sure, Cal spent big on the stadium, but that was a capital investment. The value is still there. UCLA spent it on food...which is now somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, feeding clams and oysters.

---

Forgiving their mismanagement would be part of the quid pro quo for them agreeing to stay.

BigDaddy said:

---

Chabbear said:

---

I thought that SC football fans cared more about Notre Dame and Cal than UCLA.

---

I've lived in Los Angeles since the Nineties and have never heard a USC fan or booster talk about Cal as any kind of rival or team they cared about.

---

Nor Furd. The Bay Area (in the City) weekend was a big thing to travel to. Would still be, but no one wants to come to SF presently. We are staying at a preeminent SF Hotel for a rack rate of $200/night over the Thanksgiving weekend football games (UCLA and Furd vs BYU). Normally the rate would be 4 to 5 times higher.

Rushinbear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

Rumor going around is that the Regents are offering UCLA a no interest $100 million dollar "loan"... would not have to be repaid... to convince them to reverse course and remain in the Pac-12

Indicates to me that the Regents don't think they can stop them and are trying to get UCLA to say 'No' to B1G membership. Seems like a long shot. Contracts are already signed and they're looking at a bigger payday if they go to the B1G.

---

IIRC they already publicly said they do have the power.

Allowing UCLA to leave wouldn't address the impact to climate change, impact to students or impact to Cal.

This type of deal - assuming it is even true - feels more like the type of thing that is negotiated behind the scenes where one party (UCLA) realizes they made a decision they'd like a do-over on, and both parties realize a face saving solution makes everyone look better. In other words, the "offer" would be merely a formality...they'd have already agreed this was the solution.

---

What about the hc, ad and chancellor? Ya gonna let them off for total mismanagement?

Sure, Cal spent big on the stadium, but that was a capital investment. The value is still there. UCLA spent it on food...which is now somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, feeding clams and oysters.

---

No LA solid waste stream becomes biosolids that are used in compost sites in either the Central Valley or Arizona (some also are buried in landfills). For all you guys eating organic, you will be happy to know that your food is fertilized with treated "natural" biosolids. Biosolids is a nice word for ....

Per this source, UCLA will need to spend @10m annually to address student athlete concerns re travel, academic support, nutrition, etc. if they go through with the move to the B1G.

https://www.si.com/college/ucla/news/uc-regents-allude-to-action-against-ucla-regarding-big-ten-move

wifeisafurd said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

Rumor going around is that the Regents are offering UCLA a no interest $100 million dollar "loan"... would not have to be repaid... to convince them to reverse course and remain in the Pac-12

Indicates to me that the Regents don't think they can stop them and are trying to get UCLA to say 'No' to B1G membership. Seems like a long shot. Contracts are already signed and they're looking at a bigger payday if they go to the B1G.

---

IIRC they already publicly said they do have the power.

Allowing UCLA to leave wouldn't address the impact to climate change, impact to students or impact to Cal.

This type of deal - assuming it is even true - feels more like the type of thing that is negotiated behind the scenes where one party (UCLA) realizes they made a decision they'd like a do-over on, and both parties realize a face saving solution makes everyone look better. In other words, the "offer" would be merely a formality...they'd have already agreed this was the solution.

---

What about the hc, ad and chancellor? Ya gonna let them off for total mismanagement?

Sure, Cal spent big on the stadium, but that was a capital investment. The value is still there. UCLA spent it on food...which is now somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, feeding clams and oysters.

---

No LA solid waste stream becomes biosolids that are used in compost sites in either the Central Valley or Arizona (some also are buried in landfills). For all you guys eating organic, you will be happy to know that your food is fertilized with treated "natural" biosolids. Biosolids is a nice word for ....

---

It's that bad, is it?

My impression is that it is a done deal. UCLA has examined their financial requirements carefully and they feel it is not something which should stand in the way of the move. Gene Block apparently had the authority from a 1990 document to accept the move without receiving the Regents approval. The Regents can probably overrule the document and Block's acceptance, but I doubt they will do that.

I further believe that Block or some other executive in Westwood did give a heads-up when the BIG offer first came through. I can't imagine a chancellor sticking his neck out without tacit approval in advance from the Office of the President of UC.

The article in the Times had an omission. Nothing mentioned paying Cal or any other institution for the loss of revenue derived from the move. So much for that thought.

Here's the full agenda:
b2a.pdf (universityofcalifornia.edu)

The best part - UCLA proposes to mitigate some of the travel expenses by SHARING flights with USC...

Travel improvements $4,620,000 to 5,790,000

UCLA intends to mitigate the travel impact on student-athletes by increasing access to charter flights and minimizing the number of days spent away from campus. After conducting a detailed cost estimate of charter flights to Big Ten schools, calculating the number of additional charter flights needed for each team and days spent away from campus, UCLA estimates that it will spend between $4.62 and $5.79 million per year on increased travel expenses. These costs may be significantly reduced through efficiencies such as neutral site tournaments, shared flights between UCLA teams and USC teams, and other accommodations that can further reduce travel and travel costs to the Midwest and East Coast.

What about maybe, just maybe there's a recommendation from the regents that CAL be considered as a possible member of the BIG???

tequila4kapp said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

Rumor going around is that the Regents are offering UCLA a no interest $100 million dollar "loan"... would not have to be repaid... to convince them to reverse course and remain in the Pac-12

Indicates to me that the Regents don't think they can stop them and are trying to get UCLA to say 'No' to B1G membership. Seems like a long shot. Contracts are already signed and they're looking at a bigger payday if they go to the B1G.

---

IIRC they already publicly said they do have the power.

Allowing UCLA to leave wouldn't address the impact to climate change, impact to students or impact to Cal.

This type of deal - assuming it is even true - feels more like the type of thing that is negotiated behind the scenes where one party (UCLA) realizes they made a decision they'd like a do-over on, and both parties realize a face saving solution makes everyone look better. In other words, the "offer" would be merely a formality...they'd have already agreed this was the solution.

---

Yeah they did, but they're not going to.

And who gives a d*mn about climate change when it comes to success in college football? Are people daft enough to think this matters to anyone except the teams in the Pac12? I'm unsure how anyone would believe that increased travel and the resultant increase in pollution would stop this move. If that were the case, then you can kiss any other invitation to join the Big 10 goodbye. What athletic conference would want to deal with the idiocy that are the UC Regents or the Pac12?

As for the $100 million? If I'm Cal, I would be hollering at the top of my lungs for us to get money too to pay off our own mismanagement of the stadium renovation and the SAHPC.

My recollection is it is a stated goal of the regents. There was some mention of it in prior communications. I'm not saying I do / do not agree, just that if reducing carbon footprint is a stated goal this ain't the way to do it. It is something for the Regents to partially hang their hat on, if they want/need to.

Golden One said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The Bay Area (in the City) weekend was a big thing to travel to. Would still be, but no one wants to come to SF presently.

---

Can you blame them? What used to be a beautiful and welcoming city has become a cesspool of drugees, homeless, thieves, and thugs.

---

I don't entirely disagree, but have you been to the area around the USC campus lately, or for that matter any part of LA? Not much difference if any.

BearGoggles said:

---

Golden One said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The Bay Area (in the City) weekend was a big thing to travel to. Would still be, but no one wants to come to SF presently.

---

Can you blame them? What used to be a beautiful and welcoming city has become a cesspool of drugees, homeless, thieves, and thugs.

---

I don't entirely disagree, but have you been to the area around the USC campus lately, or for that matter any part of LA? Not much difference if any.

---

I agree about the area around USC. But LA has the beaches, which can be a draw to young people.

upsetof86 said:

---

Wikipedia has a great summary of who the Regents are and their duties.. How the majority are appointed by the Gov and ratified by State Senate. In the last 2 decades most appointees are distinguished by having donated large sums of money to the Governor. Seven Regents are ex officio. The vast majority of appointed Regents have historically been businessmen, lawyers and politicians. Fascinating basis for stewarding policy and long term planning of the UC System.

---

Critical is term legnth. 10 years. That means that most regents are appointed by the PREVIOUS Governor and much less depenedent on politicians than say the University of Florida system.

Rushinbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

Rumor going around is that the Regents are offering UCLA a no interest $100 million dollar "loan"... would not have to be repaid... to convince them to reverse course and remain in the Pac-12

Indicates to me that the Regents don't think they can stop them and are trying to get UCLA to say 'No' to B1G membership. Seems like a long shot. Contracts are already signed and they're looking at a bigger payday if they go to the B1G.

---

IIRC they already publicly said they do have the power.

Allowing UCLA to leave wouldn't address the impact to climate change, impact to students or impact to Cal.

This type of deal - assuming it is even true - feels more like the type of thing that is negotiated behind the scenes where one party (UCLA) realizes they made a decision they'd like a do-over on, and both parties realize a face saving solution makes everyone look better. In other words, the "offer" would be merely a formality...they'd have already agreed this was the solution.

---

What about the hc, ad and chancellor? Ya gonna let them off for total mismanagement?

Sure, Cal spent big on the stadium, but that was a capital investment. The value is still there. UCLA spent it on food...which is now somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, feeding clams and oysters.

---

No LA solid waste stream becomes biosolids that are used in compost sites in either the Central Valley or Arizona (some also are buried in landfills). For all you guys eating organic, you will be happy to know that your food is fertilized with treated "natural" biosolids. Biosolids is a nice word for ....

---

It's that bad, is it?

---

It is also called sludge. If you look into what goes into non-organic fertilizers and supplements you may think that is worse, or not (people can make up their own mind). The metaphor about the making of sausage applies to other foods and the water we drink. Then there is waste water and the water you drink (toilet to tap) you may not want here about either. People like to use words recycling, reclamation, ecology, etc. often util they know what it all means for them individually, but there is no absolute no threat to health. In particular , the more recent practice of injecting treated waste water back into water basins has prevented draconian controls being placed on water use during the draught and saved the California economy. Sorry if I wax on a little too much, but I used to do this stuff for governmental agencies on the legal side, and I think it is good people should know what they are eating and drinking. End of sermon.

socaltownie said:

---

upsetof86 said:

---

Wikipedia has a great summary of who the Regents are and their duties.. How the majority are appointed by the Gov and ratified by State Senate. In the last 2 decades most appointees are distinguished by having donated large sums of money to the Governor. Seven Regents are ex officio. The vast majority of appointed Regents have historically been businessmen, lawyers and politicians. Fascinating basis for stewarding policy and long term planning of the UC System.

---

Critical is term legnth. 10 years. That means that most regents are appointed by the PREVIOUS Governor and much less depenedent on politicians than say the University of Florida system.

---

The UC Regents has a history of following the lead of the Governor and high level politicians. They almost all are large donors or celebs and this case they are tied into (and owe their patronage) to the Newson and Brown administrations.

wifeisafurd said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

upsetof86 said:

---

Wikipedia has a great summary of who the Regents are and their duties.. How the majority are appointed by the Gov and ratified by State Senate. In the last 2 decades most appointees are distinguished by having donated large sums of money to the Governor. Seven Regents are ex officio. The vast majority of appointed Regents have historically been businessmen, lawyers and politicians. Fascinating basis for stewarding policy and long term planning of the UC System.

---

Critical is term legnth. 10 years. That means that most regents are appointed by the PREVIOUS Governor and much less depenedent on politicians than say the University of Florida system.

---

The UC Regents has a history of following the lead of the Governor and high level politicians. They almost all are large donors or celebs and this case they are tied into (and owe their patronage) to the Newson and Brown administrations.

---

I am not sure about that. Maybe it is because we have been blessed by Governors who saw limited benefit of micromanaging the system. I can, for example, not construct a scenario under which the regents cave like they did with the appointment of Ben Sasse to the U of F Presidency or fire a football coach because the governing board is pissed about W and L. It is very instructive to look at the MUCH closer governing power Governors have in other state systems and how much they meddle in higher ed.