socaltownie said:

---

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.

---

UC Regents say they will hold special meeting on Dec. 14 at 2 p.m. PT to finalize the UCLA "decision on the Big Ten membership."

— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) November 17, 2022

philly1121 said:

---

Boy, talk about kicking the can down the road.

The only thing I can think of is that the delay has to do with the strike, OR

They're resigned to let UCLA go but they are haggling over the exit fee.

---

philly1121 said:

---

Boy, talk about kicking the can down the road.

The only thing I can think of is that the delay has to do with the strike, OR

They're resigned to let UCLA go but they are haggling over the exit fee.

---

CalLifer said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Boy, talk about kicking the can down the road.

The only thing I can think of is that the delay has to do with the strike, OR

They're resigned to let UCLA go but they are haggling over the exit fee.

---

One other thought is that there might be more insight into the next media contract with/without UCLA by that date (and to any negotiations about a Cal invite to B1G), which might make things moot or more clear.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Boy, talk about kicking the can down the road.

The only thing I can think of is that the delay has to do with the strike, OR

They're resigned to let UCLA go but they are haggling over the exit fee.

---

One other thought is that there might be more insight into the next media contract with/without UCLA by that date (and to any negotiations about a Cal invite to B1G), which might make things moot or more clear.

---

They need to know Pac media deal specifics to arrive at penalty.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Boy, talk about kicking the can down the road.

The only thing I can think of is that the delay has to do with the strike, OR

They're resigned to let UCLA go but they are haggling over the exit fee.

---

One other thought is that there might be more insight into the next media contract with/without UCLA by that date (and to any negotiations about a Cal invite to B1G), which might make things moot or more clear.

---

They need to know Pac media deal specifics to arrive at penalty.

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think the Regents pushing UCLA to remain would have exposed the system to significant legal liability from the B1G. They would have NO worries about suing and they might be able to get significant damages If their TV partners came back and reopened the contract with UCLA not coming.

Not really that unexpected. Forcing UCLA would have been unprecedented. Sorta an "ask foregiveness after" moment.

---

Econ141 said:

---

Bigger picture folks - our Chancellor just told the B1G she does not like pay-for-play. That's it, we are done.

She just told the B1G that she does not want to join. She hasn't been working on the realignment other than b.i.t.c.h.i.n.g about how things are changing.

I don't know what hope there is left to have here. Am I interpreting this wrong? Why would she be having convos trying to get into B1G if she is not amenable to pay for play? What recruit wants to come here when the chancellor says this? So much wrong with her comments!

---

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Bigger picture folks - our Chancellor just told the B1G she does not like pay-for-play. That's it, we are done.

She just told the B1G that she does not want to join. She hasn't been working on the realignment other than b.i.t.c.h.i.n.g about how things are changing.

I don't know what hope there is left to have here. Am I interpreting this wrong? Why would she be having convos trying to get into B1G if she is not amenable to pay for play? What recruit wants to come here when the chancellor says this? So much wrong with her comments!

---

Moreover, she voices her commitment to women's and Olympic sports with seemingly no understanding of the role football plays in supporting those sports.

I don't know why "insiders" would say she is working hard on getting us in the B1G when this indicates the opposite.

Our only hope is that a strong alumni booster group, not officially connected to the university, effectively takes control of the revenue sports, to include the majority of coach pay (and thus the main bring decision making) and payments for players.

---

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Bigger picture folks - our Chancellor just told the B1G she does not like pay-for-play. That's it, we are done.

She just told the B1G that she does not want to join. She hasn't been working on the realignment other than b.i.t.c.h.i.n.g about how things are changing.

I don't know what hope there is left to have here. Am I interpreting this wrong? Why would she be having convos trying to get into B1G if she is not amenable to pay for play? What recruit wants to come here when the chancellor says this? So much wrong with her comments!

---

Moreover, she voices her commitment to women's and Olympic sports with seemingly no understanding of the role football plays in supporting those sports.

I don't know why "insiders" would say she is working hard on getting us in the B1G when this indicates the opposite.

Our only hope is that a strong alumni booster group, not officially connected to the university, effectively takes control of the revenue sports, to include the majority of coach pay (and thus the main bring decision making) and payments for players.

---

Exactly right ... Came back to edit my post with that but you beat me to the punch. The fact that she does not understand that means that she has spent 0% of her time on all this (contrary to what some have posted).

---

Chabbear said:

---

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.

---

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Bigger picture folks - our Chancellor just told the B1G she does not like pay-for-play. That's it, we are done.

She just told the B1G that she does not want to join. She hasn't been working on the realignment other than b.i.t.c.h.i.n.g about how things are changing.

I don't know what hope there is left to have here. Am I interpreting this wrong? Why would she be having convos trying to get into B1G if she is not amenable to pay for play? What recruit wants to come here when the chancellor says this? So much wrong with her comments!

---

Moreover, she voices her commitment to women's and Olympic sports with seemingly no understanding of the role football plays in supporting those sports.

I don't know why "insiders" would say she is working hard on getting us in the B1G when this indicates the opposite.

Our only hope is that a strong alumni booster group, not officially connected to the university, effectively takes control of the revenue sports, to include the majority of coach pay (and thus the main bring decision making) and payments for players.

---

Exactly right ... Came back to edit my post with that but you beat me to the punch. The fact that she does not understand that means that she has spent 0% of her time on all this (contrary to what some have posted).

---

So while Oregon and Washington and other schools were lobbying the B1G, her "active engagement" if anything, was to keep us out, but maybe spoil UCLA's chances of going too.

Seems highly unlikely we get an invite with Christ signaling she would turn it down.

I think we should resign ourselves to the fact we will not be going to the B1G and have to hope the PAC-10 survives under Kliavkoff's leadership with a decent media rights package and auto bid for the CFP.

The only exception might be if a much larger West Cost pod can be created and she acquiesced to that.

We will also have Wilcox for a few more years and have to hope he gets the next OC hire right.

NIL payments will have to gone from a strong booster group.

---

bearsince99 said:

---

Chabbear said:

---

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.

---

I lived in LA too, and I can assure you USC does not give a damn about Cal in anyway, it's unfortunate but they just don't care about Cal. It's another pac12 game for them and that's what UCLA is treating it like. We suck now and maybe they cared more when we had tedford but no USC fan has a hatred for cal.

---

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Bigger picture folks - our Chancellor just told the B1G she does not like pay-for-play. That's it, we are done.

She just told the B1G that she does not want to join. She hasn't been working on the realignment other than b.i.t.c.h.i.n.g about how things are changing.

I don't know what hope there is left to have here. Am I interpreting this wrong? Why would she be having convos trying to get into B1G if she is not amenable to pay for play? What recruit wants to come here when the chancellor says this? So much wrong with her comments!

---

Moreover, she voices her commitment to women's and Olympic sports with seemingly no understanding of the role football plays in supporting those sports.

I don't know why "insiders" would say she is working hard on getting us in the B1G when this indicates the opposite.

Our only hope is that a strong alumni booster group, not officially connected to the university, effectively takes control of the revenue sports, to include the majority of coach pay (and thus the main bring decision making) and payments for players.

---

Exactly right ... Came back to edit my post with that but you beat me to the punch. The fact that she does not understand that means that she has spent 0% of her time on all this (contrary to what some have posted).

---

Seems highly unlikely we get an invite with Christ signaling she would turn it down.

---

MrGPAC said:

---

UCLA absolutely did wrong on multiple fronts here.

1) They mismanaged their athletic budgets to the point that they are heavily indebted and looking to cancel sports. They are lucky they got a golden parachute offer from the B1G or they may be asking the regents for money instead of forgiveness.

2) They agreed to the contract with the B1G and signed it without getting express permission from the Regents first. This puts the regents in a bad position where they cannot cancel the agreement without risking litigation from the B1G. You cannot reward the trope "Its better to ask for forgiveness than permission", or else it will just happen again.

3) They agreed to the contract with no regard for the UC system as a whole to which they are a member. And yes, this primarily means its damages to Cal.

4) They took the agreement without thought of the effects on the student athletes (or at least without enough thought on it, as per the results of the surveys of their student athletes).

There will be some sort of punishment to UCLA on 2 alone. 3 is expressly against the rules as well and they should be punished for that as well.

Whether or not those punishments help Cal in anyway, or in fact hurt Cals ability to move to the B1G at a later date, is to be determined.

The sad thing is I doubt the B1G cares nearly as much about UCLA as the Pac does. The B1G took them to give USC a partner and because USC asked...and I doubt it would have much impact on the B1G media revenues if UCLA were to bail. In fact, it very well could end up with a higher per school payout if UCLA doesn't join.

Short of blocking the move for UCLA outright, kicking the can down the road is a good thing for Cal. The best reason for kicking the can down the road is that the regents need more data. The biggest data point missing is damages UCLA did to Cal, which indicates that thoughts of a payment / penalty being due exist. It also keeps a bit of pressure on the B1G to invite Cal to just make the whole mess go away. To an extent, they are still in limbo on all of this until the Regents make a final ruling on this. The longer the Regents drag out their decision the better for Cal.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Bigger picture folks - our Chancellor just told the B1G she does not like pay-for-play. That's it, we are done.

She just told the B1G that she does not want to join. She hasn't been working on the realignment other than b.i.t.c.h.i.n.g about how things are changing.

I don't know what hope there is left to have here. Am I interpreting this wrong? Why would she be having convos trying to get into B1G if she is not amenable to pay for play? What recruit wants to come here when the chancellor says this? So much wrong with her comments!

---

Moreover, she voices her commitment to women's and Olympic sports with seemingly no understanding of the role football plays in supporting those sports.

I don't know why "insiders" would say she is working hard on getting us in the B1G when this indicates the opposite.

Our only hope is that a strong alumni booster group, not officially connected to the university, effectively takes control of the revenue sports, to include the majority of coach pay (and thus the main bring decision making) and payments for players.

---

Exactly right ... Came back to edit my post with that but you beat me to the punch. The fact that she does not understand that means that she has spent 0% of her time on all this (contrary to what some have posted).

---

Seems highly unlikely we get an invite with Christ signaling she would turn it down.

---

Being repetitive, but both Furd and Cal did outreach to the B1G. Whether any B1G offer will be accepted depends on the strength of the Pac 12 media contact versus what the B1G offers. It is a game of chicken, with the B1G trying to get a discount up front for the other teams like Cal and Furd to join. I just don't see the B1G leaving half or more (if UCLA doesn't come) of the California TV market in play. Ultimately, the B1G needs a western pod for USC to succeed. As for what you think you heard today, you need to step back and see the strategies in play.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Bigger picture folks - our Chancellor just told the B1G she does not like pay-for-play. That's it, we are done.

She just told the B1G that she does not want to join. She hasn't been working on the realignment other than b.i.t.c.h.i.n.g about how things are changing.

I don't know what hope there is left to have here. Am I interpreting this wrong? Why would she be having convos trying to get into B1G if she is not amenable to pay for play? What recruit wants to come here when the chancellor says this? So much wrong with her comments!

---

In this case, actions speak louder than words. The Chancellor has approved collectives (take a bow Sebssterbear) to pay players, even though she personally doesn't like the concept. Guess she wants to compete. She went through what was a scripted with the regents full of a bunch of old farts that agree with her, to support the decision they made today.

Stanford has said they won't cooperate with collectives or engage in play for pay on numerous occasions over the last few years and they don't have anybody whimpering they won't get an invite to the B1G. The actually had their AD say all that in front of Congress. Our wonderful Pac commissioners (Larry and George) have come out and said they are against pay for play,. I understand that people are not following this that closely, but let's try to apply some strategic understanding as to what is going on here. The Chancellor can't say pay for play is good or she allowed it (as I'm sure UCLA will point out) because she undermines the Pac's and her arguments before the Regents. UCLAs' response is why pay any exit fee, when how well Cal or any other team will do is based on the strength to their ability to raise donors funds to pay players? Try to follow along.

Both Furd and Cal did outreach to the B1G. Whether any B1G offer will be accepted depends on the strength of the Pac 12 media contact versus what the B1G offers. It is a game of chicken, with the B1G trying to get a discount up front for the other teams like Cal and Furd to join. I just don't see the B1G leaving half or more (if UCLA doesn't come) of the California TV market in play. Ultimately, the B1G needs a western pod for USC to succeed.

---