tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

Aplogies for bring dense but I'd this too say the B1G basically plans to come in after the P12 media deal is announced with an offer that is P12 share + X (X representing some extra amount to incentivize the move)? And that total amount being less than a full B1G share?

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

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.

---

The bigger problem, IMO, is this sets things up to force Washington and Oregon to pay exist fees for teams the B1G really doesn't want for economic reasons. IMO, the B1G may need to move quickly on Cal and Furd lesat it lose its west coast pod, unless it knows the new Pac media deal sucks.

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

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.

---

The bigger problem, IMO, is this sets things up to force Washington and Oregon to pay exist fees for teams the B1G really doesn't want for economic reasons. IMO, the B1G may need to move quickly on Cal and Furd lesat it lose its west coast pod, unless it knows the new Pac media deal sucks.

---

Agreed. Seems like the move needs to be before the new grant of rights are signed away. Unless maybe it is 6 leaving and can vote to obsolete themselves of the obligation? Then the west Coast pod would be the old PAC-8.

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

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.

---

The bigger problem, IMO, is this sets things up to force Washington and Oregon to pay exist fees for teams the B1G really doesn't want for economic reasons. IMO, the B1G may need to move quickly on Cal and Furd lesat it lose its west coast pod, unless it knows the new Pac media deal sucks.

---

Agreed. Seems like the move needs to be before the new grant of rights are signed away. Unless maybe it is 6 leaving and can vote to obsolete themselves of the obligation? Then the west Coast pod would be the old PAC-8.

---

calumnus said:

---

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.

---

Ok, then we will see.

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

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.

---

The bigger problem, IMO, is this sets things up to force Washington and Oregon to pay exist fees for teams the B1G really doesn't want for economic reasons. IMO, the B1G may need to move quickly on Cal and Furd lesat it lose its west coast pod, unless it knows the new Pac media deal sucks.

---

Agreed. Seems like the move needs to be before the new grant of rights are signed away. Unless maybe it is 6 leaving and can vote to obsolete themselves of the obligation? Then the west Coast pod would be the old PAC-8.

---

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!

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

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.

---

Ok, then we will see.

---

As another poster mentioned time is not on the B1G's side, as the Regents keeps delaying. Once the Pac accepts the new media deal, which arguably could happen this year, the Pac teams face a material penalty to leave. Yes, Oregon has a donor that can the penalty, but no one else probably does. But at that point, and again assuming the Pac doesn't have a stinker deal, the B1G losses all leverage, and if the Regents has not announced UCLA's penalty, UCLA is in a tough spot. From the outside, it looks like the B1G is now the party under pressure.

---

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.

---

philly1121 said:

---

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.

---

Eh, I think your post is a bit contradictory.

1. UCLA's Athletic Dept. is about $102 mil in debt. You can chalk that up to mismanagement or the necessity of providing all these non-revenue sports. We don't have that kind of debt. We have a different kind of debt that has now been spread to the University. Which is worse? Do we blame ourselves for the optimistic expectation of season tickets or seat licenses? I'm not sure what you expect UCLA to do when we are in a different kind of debt. Same type of mismanagement.

2. They didn't need the UC's permission.

3. We'll come back to this point below.

4. It is completely ridiculous to assume that this was done without assessing the effects of increased travel or "away time" on student academics or performance. Regardless, the survey reads that the athletes feel it is important to stay with USC.

As to your other remarks and as to your #3, you can't speak of punishment or damages to Cal without asking what that would look like or even how. If what you're saying is true, and the B1G only cared about USC (bringing UCLA as their dance partner), then it must follow that UCLA didn't really add the value to the Pac12 that you describe. And how could it? I've wrote repeatedly that the only metric is the existing media rights deal in terms of an exit fee. But if the new media rights deal for the P12 were to be used, how would one assess "damages" and how would any lost revenue of the new deal be attributed to UCLA? So, if you're saying that UCLA's exit from the Big10 deal would not have any impact to the B1G deal, then how could it possibly be impactful to UCLA leaving the P12?

USC was the driver in this. They took UCLA as a natural dance partner. B1G is in the driver seat as is ESPN or whatever network wants the P12. B1G has made their move. UCLA has too.

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

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.

---

Eh, I think your post is a bit contradictory.

1. UCLA's Athletic Dept. is about $102 mil in debt. You can chalk that up to mismanagement or the necessity of providing all these non-revenue sports. We don't have that kind of debt. We have a different kind of debt that has now been spread to the University. Which is worse? Do we blame ourselves for the optimistic expectation of season tickets or seat licenses? I'm not sure what you expect UCLA to do when we are in a different kind of debt. Same type of mismanagement.

2. They didn't need the UC's permission.

3. We'll come back to this point below.

4. It is completely ridiculous to assume that this was done without assessing the effects of increased travel or "away time" on student academics or performance. Regardless, the survey reads that the athletes feel it is important to stay with USC.

As to your other remarks and as to your #3, you can't speak of punishment or damages to Cal without asking what that would look like or even how. If what you're saying is true, and the B1G only cared about USC (bringing UCLA as their dance partner), then it must follow that UCLA didn't really add the value to the Pac12 that you describe. And how could it? I've wrote repeatedly that the only metric is the existing media rights deal in terms of an exit fee. But if the new media rights deal for the P12 were to be used, how would one assess "damages" and how would any lost revenue of the new deal be attributed to UCLA? So, if you're saying that UCLA's exit from the Big10 deal would not have any impact to the B1G deal, then how could it possibly be impactful to UCLA leaving the P12?

USC was the driver in this. They took UCLA as a natural dance partner. B1G is in the driver seat as is ESPN or whatever network wants the P12. B1G has made their move. UCLA has too.

---

Having a presence in the LA Market has HUGE value. You don't need both USC AND UCLA to get that market. There are 3 values here:

Value of USC AND UCLA <--- highest
Value of just USC <---- only slightly lower than value of USC AND UCLA
Value of just UCLA <---- much greater than the difference in value of USC AND UCLA and just USC.

None of that is contradictory. Easy analogy...if I have a large pizza the value of garlic twists to me isn't that great. Don't get me wrong, they are awesome and are delicious, and they add value to the meal...but the pizza is the main course and I will be more than happy with just that if its all that is available. Now, if I have no food at all and am starving...the garlic twists are extremely valuable to me. The Pac12 is STARVING for the LA Market, to the point they may go for SDSU just to get something in Southern California at all.

Worth noting, the Pac12 commissioner is on record saying they are negotiating AT LEAST two deals right now. One with UCLA and one without. He will have hard values to present to the UC Regents. "If UCLA had stayed (or is forced to stay) Cal will get X per year. With them gone they get Y per year." Those exact dollar values WILL be available. This isn't a hypothetical here...

Also, they DID need UC's permission. If they didn't then there wouldn't be a conversation with the regents right now. The conversation would have been, "UCLA left the conference without permission!" "OK, why are you bothering us?". That's not the current conversation. Even when this first went down the first thing everyone was asking was did they get the Regents permission.

Lastly, yes...the result of the survey is they still want USC to be their rival and that is important to them. That has NOTHING to do with my point. My point is they are apprehensive about the new travel situation and that none of those concerns are being addressed by UCLA currently. If they have some great plan they should share it already.

Lets be honest here...UCLA and USC had until June 30th to withdraw from the Pac12 while avoiding penalties before the new contract negotiations. They made the decision at the last possible second. This decision was rushed on their behalf because a deadline had arrived, and they made the decision without a full set of data. The data they did have is 100 million >>>>> whatever they were going to get otherwise. The rush to do so before penalties would be levied is also why they didn't have time to stop to ask the regents for permission, and why they don't have a full plan yet on how to deal with the increased travel requirements.

That doesn't mean they can't/won't figure it out. But to pretend they had it all figured out before making the decision is fooling themselves.

---

I agree with you that UCLA probably did need the approval of the Regents to move to the BIG10

Based on the foregoing, I disagree with any conclusion that the Regents could in any way be liable if they reject the move by UCLA to the BIG10. And I disagree with the idea that (at present) UCLA has any kind of binding contract with the BIG10.

When entering into a contract it is alway better to ask for permission before entering into that contract than to ask for forgiveness later. If permission was necessary it was NECESSARY.

There can be no binding contract without that permission. The Regents can still agree to give that permission after the execution of the non-binding contract by UCLA. That process is referred to as "ratification" of an otherwise unenforceable contract. But written permission by the Regents is still required.

The foregoing analysis is basic contract law that every lawyer learns in first year of law school

As for UCLA's possible liability that is a different matter. If the BIG10 knew, or should have known, that UCLA required the permission of the Regents but proceeded anyway, UCLA likely has no liability.
But if UCLA lied to the Big 10 about not needing the Regents' approval, then UCLA might be looking at liability.
If on the other hand, UCLA said, we might need the Regents' approval, then there is likely no liability for UCLA.

---

Shocky1 said:

---

philly, a key point re: financial mismanagement is that ucla is $102,000,000 in debt with 10+ less program's than cal but keep in mind the benevolent christ (78 years old, current contract ends in 2023) is subsidizing the knowlton bureaucratic clown show almost $30,000,000 a year & it's realistic to think that subsidy is gonna go away with the next chancellor in berkeley

your statement "we don't have that kind of debt" is not accurate, our debt is gonna be way worse wen the subsidy ends

the point is that knowlton is on the path to bankrupting cal athletics with his empire of dirt

hurt (no johnny cash)#

---

MrGPAC said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

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.

---

Eh, I think your post is a bit contradictory.

1. UCLA's Athletic Dept. is about $102 mil in debt. You can chalk that up to mismanagement or the necessity of providing all these non-revenue sports. We don't have that kind of debt. We have a different kind of debt that has now been spread to the University. Which is worse? Do we blame ourselves for the optimistic expectation of season tickets or seat licenses? I'm not sure what you expect UCLA to do when we are in a different kind of debt. Same type of mismanagement.

2. They didn't need the UC's permission.

3. We'll come back to this point below.

4. It is completely ridiculous to assume that this was done without assessing the effects of increased travel or "away time" on student academics or performance. Regardless, the survey reads that the athletes feel it is important to stay with USC.

As to your other remarks and as to your #3, you can't speak of punishment or damages to Cal without asking what that would look like or even how. If what you're saying is true, and the B1G only cared about USC (bringing UCLA as their dance partner), then it must follow that UCLA didn't really add the value to the Pac12 that you describe. And how could it? I've wrote repeatedly that the only metric is the existing media rights deal in terms of an exit fee. But if the new media rights deal for the P12 were to be used, how would one assess "damages" and how would any lost revenue of the new deal be attributed to UCLA? So, if you're saying that UCLA's exit from the Big10 deal would not have any impact to the B1G deal, then how could it possibly be impactful to UCLA leaving the P12?

USC was the driver in this. They took UCLA as a natural dance partner. B1G is in the driver seat as is ESPN or whatever network wants the P12. B1G has made their move. UCLA has too.

---

Having a presence in the LA Market has HUGE value. You don't need both USC AND UCLA to get that market. There are 3 values here:

Value of USC AND UCLA <--- highest
Value of just USC <---- only slightly lower than value of USC AND UCLA
Value of just UCLA <---- much greater than the difference in value of USC AND UCLA and just USC.

None of that is contradictory. Easy analogy...if I have a large pizza the value of garlic twists to me isn't that great. Don't get me wrong, they are awesome and are delicious, and they add value to the meal...but the pizza is the main course and I will be more than happy with just that if its all that is available. Now, if I have no food at all and am starving...the garlic twists are extremely valuable to me. The Pac12 is STARVING for the LA Market, to the point they may go for SDSU just to get something in Southern California at all.

Worth noting, the Pac12 commissioner is on record saying they are negotiating AT LEAST two deals right now. One with UCLA and one without. He will have hard values to present to the UC Regents. "If UCLA had stayed (or is forced to stay) Cal will get X per year. With them gone they get Y per year." Those exact dollar values WILL be available. This isn't a hypothetical here...

Also, they DID need UC's permission. If they didn't then there wouldn't be a conversation with the regents right now. The conversation would have been, "UCLA left the conference without permission!" "OK, why are you bothering us?". That's not the current conversation. Even when this first went down the first thing everyone was asking was did they get the Regents permission.

Lastly, yes...the result of the survey is they still want USC to be their rival and that is important to them. That has NOTHING to do with my point. My point is they are apprehensive about the new travel situation and that none of those concerns are being addressed by UCLA currently. If they have some great plan they should share it already.

Lets be honest here...UCLA and USC had until June 30th to withdraw from the Pac12 while avoiding penalties before the new contract negotiations. They made the decision at the last possible second. This decision was rushed on their behalf because a deadline had arrived, and they made the decision without a full set of data. The data they did have is 100 million >>>>> whatever they were going to get otherwise. The rush to do so before penalties would be levied is also why they didn't have time to stop to ask the regents for permission, and why they don't have a full plan yet on how to deal with the increased travel requirements.

That doesn't mean they can't/won't figure it out. But to pretend they had it all figured out before making the decision is fooling themselves.

---

I agree with you that UCLA probably did need the approval of the Regents to move to the BIG10

Based on the foregoing, I disagree with any conclusion that the Regents could in any way be liable if they reject the move by UCLA to the BIG10. And I disagree with the idea that (at present) UCLA has any kind of binding contract with the BIG10.

When entering into a contract it is alway better to ask for permission before entering into that contract than to ask for forgiveness later. If permission was necessary it was NECESSARY.

There can be no binding contract without that permission. The Regents can still agree to give that permission after the execution of the non-binding contract by UCLA. That process is referred to as "ratification" of an otherwise unenforceable contract. But written permission by the Regents is still required.

The foregoing analysis is basic contract law that every lawyer learns in first year of law school

As for UCLA's possible liability that is a different matter. If the BIG10 knew, or should have known, that UCLA required the permission of the Regents but proceeded anyway, UCLA likely has no liability.
But if UCLA lied to the Big 10 about not needing the Regents' approval, then UCLA might be looking at liability.
If on the other hand, UCLA said, we might need the Regents' approval, then there is likely no liability for UCLA.

---

Just because the B1G doesn't have a case doesn't mean they won't file a lawsuit. They just need to be annoying enough to make the Regents want to take another path. Chance are they would file for an injunction preventing UCLA from entering any other conference until the lawsuit is complete. If they dragged the law suit out past 2024 when UCLA officially exits the Pac12 it could be devastating to UCLA athletics. The longer UCLA is in limbo the worse it is for the existing (and any prospective) student athletes as well.

However likely that is to play out at least has to be considered by the Regents...not to mention legal fees.

Dream scenario for me personally is UCLA move gets blocked (potentially on purpose as they have second thoughts about the move, especially if the Pac can work a miracle on the media contracts and get decent value). They come back to the pac12, we add a San Diego State type team and we get a better than expected contract. UCLA can continue to play USC OOC yearly without issue I am sure, and they would remain rivals despite not being in the same conference.

More likely (but still good) scenario, B1G extends invites to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford to make a west coast pod. This avoids potential headaches all around and makes things easier, they are just waiting to see what we can get in the Pac12 now, add 10% to it and a slow ramp up to full membership. I hate to see Washington State / Oregon State pushed out of the P5 conferences, but this would be an opportunity Cal could not afford to pass up.

Most likely scenario, we get the with UCLA and without UCLA numbers and UCLA is forced to pay some fraction of the difference to Cal (for how long TBD). This is as much about punishing UCLA for putting the regents in this position as it is to benefit Cal. Cal attempts to stay relevant until the next wave of expansion (which will likely be when someone figures out how to break the ACC GoR).

I have zero doubt the B1G would love to expand to 24 teams poaching several strong candidates from the Pac12 and the ACC. I am just not sure how much they want to be a 20 team conference while waiting for that to happen.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

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.

---

Eh, I think your post is a bit contradictory.

1. UCLA's Athletic Dept. is about $102 mil in debt. You can chalk that up to mismanagement or the necessity of providing all these non-revenue sports. We don't have that kind of debt. We have a different kind of debt that has now been spread to the University. Which is worse? Do we blame ourselves for the optimistic expectation of season tickets or seat licenses? I'm not sure what you expect UCLA to do when we are in a different kind of debt. Same type of mismanagement.

2. They didn't need the UC's permission.

3. We'll come back to this point below.

4. It is completely ridiculous to assume that this was done without assessing the effects of increased travel or "away time" on student academics or performance. Regardless, the survey reads that the athletes feel it is important to stay with USC.

As to your other remarks and as to your #3, you can't speak of punishment or damages to Cal without asking what that would look like or even how. If what you're saying is true, and the B1G only cared about USC (bringing UCLA as their dance partner), then it must follow that UCLA didn't really add the value to the Pac12 that you describe. And how could it? I've wrote repeatedly that the only metric is the existing media rights deal in terms of an exit fee. But if the new media rights deal for the P12 were to be used, how would one assess "damages" and how would any lost revenue of the new deal be attributed to UCLA? So, if you're saying that UCLA's exit from the Big10 deal would not have any impact to the B1G deal, then how could it possibly be impactful to UCLA leaving the P12?

USC was the driver in this. They took UCLA as a natural dance partner. B1G is in the driver seat as is ESPN or whatever network wants the P12. B1G has made their move. UCLA has too.

---

Having a presence in the LA Market has HUGE value. You don't need both USC AND UCLA to get that market. There are 3 values here:

Value of USC AND UCLA <--- highest
Value of just USC <---- only slightly lower than value of USC AND UCLA
Value of just UCLA <---- much greater than the difference in value of USC AND UCLA and just USC.

None of that is contradictory. Easy analogy...if I have a large pizza the value of garlic twists to me isn't that great. Don't get me wrong, they are awesome and are delicious, and they add value to the meal...but the pizza is the main course and I will be more than happy with just that if its all that is available. Now, if I have no food at all and am starving...the garlic twists are extremely valuable to me. The Pac12 is STARVING for the LA Market, to the point they may go for SDSU just to get something in Southern California at all.

Worth noting, the Pac12 commissioner is on record saying they are negotiating AT LEAST two deals right now. One with UCLA and one without. He will have hard values to present to the UC Regents. "If UCLA had stayed (or is forced to stay) Cal will get X per year. With them gone they get Y per year." Those exact dollar values WILL be available. This isn't a hypothetical here...

Also, they DID need UC's permission. If they didn't then there wouldn't be a conversation with the regents right now. The conversation would have been, "UCLA left the conference without permission!" "OK, why are you bothering us?". That's not the current conversation. Even when this first went down the first thing everyone was asking was did they get the Regents permission.

Lastly, yes...the result of the survey is they still want USC to be their rival and that is important to them. That has NOTHING to do with my point. My point is they are apprehensive about the new travel situation and that none of those concerns are being addressed by UCLA currently. If they have some great plan they should share it already.

Lets be honest here...UCLA and USC had until June 30th to withdraw from the Pac12 while avoiding penalties before the new contract negotiations. They made the decision at the last possible second. This decision was rushed on their behalf because a deadline had arrived, and they made the decision without a full set of data. The data they did have is 100 million >>>>> whatever they were going to get otherwise. The rush to do so before penalties would be levied is also why they didn't have time to stop to ask the regents for permission, and why they don't have a full plan yet on how to deal with the increased travel requirements.

That doesn't mean they can't/won't figure it out. But to pretend they had it all figured out before making the decision is fooling themselves.

---

I agree with you that UCLA probably did need the approval of the Regents to move to the BIG10

Based on the foregoing, I disagree with any conclusion that the Regents could in any way be liable if they reject the move by UCLA to the BIG10. And I disagree with the idea that (at present) UCLA has any kind of binding contract with the BIG10.

When entering into a contract it is alway better to ask for permission before entering into that contract than to ask for forgiveness later. If permission was necessary it was NECESSARY.

There can be no binding contract without that permission. The Regents can still agree to give that permission after the execution of the non-binding contract by UCLA. That process is referred to as "ratification" of an otherwise unenforceable contract. But written permission by the Regents is still required.

The foregoing analysis is basic contract law that every lawyer learns in first year of law school

As for UCLA's possible liability that is a different matter. If the BIG10 knew, or should have known, that UCLA required the permission of the Regents but proceeded anyway, UCLA likely has no liability.
But if UCLA lied to the Big 10 about not needing the Regents' approval, then UCLA might be looking at liability.
If on the other hand, UCLA said, we might need the Regents' approval, then there is likely no liability for UCLA.

---

Just because the B1G doesn't have a case doesn't mean they won't file a lawsuit. They just need to be annoying enough to make the Regents want to take another path. Chance are they would file for an injunction preventing UCLA from entering any other conference until the lawsuit is complete. If they dragged the law suit out past 2024 when UCLA officially exits the Pac12 it could be devastating to UCLA athletics. The longer UCLA is in limbo the worse it is for the existing (and any prospective) student athletes as well.

However likely that is to play out at least has to be considered by the Regents...not to mention legal fees.

Dream scenario for me personally is UCLA move gets blocked (potentially on purpose as they have second thoughts about the move, especially if the Pac can work a miracle on the media contracts and get decent value). They come back to the pac12, we add a San Diego State type team and we get a better than expected contract. UCLA can continue to play USC OOC yearly without issue I am sure, and they would remain rivals despite not being in the same conference.

More likely (but still good) scenario, B1G extends invites to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford to make a west coast pod. This avoids potential headaches all around and makes things easier, they are just waiting to see what we can get in the Pac12 now, add 10% to it and a slow ramp up to full membership. I hate to see Washington State / Oregon State pushed out of the P5 conferences, but this would be an opportunity Cal could not afford to pass up.

Most likely scenario, we get the with UCLA and without UCLA numbers and UCLA is forced to pay some fraction of the difference to Cal (for how long TBD). This is as much about punishing UCLA for putting the regents in this position as it is to benefit Cal. Cal attempts to stay relevant until the next wave of expansion (which will likely be when someone figures out how to break the ACC GoR).

I have zero doubt the B1G would love to expand to 24 teams poaching several strong candidates from the Pac12 and the ACC. I am just not sure how much they want to be a 20 team conference while waiting for that to happen.

---

I have a slightly different take on this. If UCLA were to renege on its deal to join the B1G (which I assume would be a breach of a contract signed by UCLA/B1G), I don't see that as a bad scenario for Cal/Pac11.

1. The B1G really only wanted USC, so I don't think they'd be too upset about losing UCLA. I have serious doubts they file a lawsuit to block UCLA from leaving - they might just walk away for a variety of reason.

2. A lawsuit creates a ton of uncertainty for the B1G and is a huge distraction to its efforts to grow and further expand. The lawsuit will drag on for years and the ultimate outcome would be uncertain. And I think its unlikely B1G gets any type of injunction forcing UCLA to play in the B1G. It would depend on the language in the contract, but as a practical matter I doubt a court goes that far and, if it did, does the B!G really want a member (UCLA) that is disgruntled and doesn't want to be there?

3. At the same time, the lawsuit doesn't really affect Pac11 in the short run. It gets the benefit of keeping UCLA/LA market. If it loses the lawsuit, its just a money payment at some point and probably not a huge one given that B1G doesn't place huge value on UCLA (i.e., B1G will have a hard time demonstrating damages if USC remains). Lawyers might call UCLA remaining in the Pac11 an "efficient breach".

4. Even if a lawsuit is filed, one of the possible outcomes is a settlement where Cal ends up in the B1G or there's some sort of conference alliance.

---

MrGPAC said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

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.

---

Eh, I think your post is a bit contradictory.

1. UCLA's Athletic Dept. is about $102 mil in debt. You can chalk that up to mismanagement or the necessity of providing all these non-revenue sports. We don't have that kind of debt. We have a different kind of debt that has now been spread to the University. Which is worse? Do we blame ourselves for the optimistic expectation of season tickets or seat licenses? I'm not sure what you expect UCLA to do when we are in a different kind of debt. Same type of mismanagement.

2. They didn't need the UC's permission.

3. We'll come back to this point below.

4. It is completely ridiculous to assume that this was done without assessing the effects of increased travel or "away time" on student academics or performance. Regardless, the survey reads that the athletes feel it is important to stay with USC.

As to your other remarks and as to your #3, you can't speak of punishment or damages to Cal without asking what that would look like or even how. If what you're saying is true, and the B1G only cared about USC (bringing UCLA as their dance partner), then it must follow that UCLA didn't really add the value to the Pac12 that you describe. And how could it? I've wrote repeatedly that the only metric is the existing media rights deal in terms of an exit fee. But if the new media rights deal for the P12 were to be used, how would one assess "damages" and how would any lost revenue of the new deal be attributed to UCLA? So, if you're saying that UCLA's exit from the Big10 deal would not have any impact to the B1G deal, then how could it possibly be impactful to UCLA leaving the P12?

USC was the driver in this. They took UCLA as a natural dance partner. B1G is in the driver seat as is ESPN or whatever network wants the P12. B1G has made their move. UCLA has too.

---

Having a presence in the LA Market has HUGE value. You don't need both USC AND UCLA to get that market. There are 3 values here:

Value of USC AND UCLA <--- highest
Value of just USC <---- only slightly lower than value of USC AND UCLA
Value of just UCLA <---- much greater than the difference in value of USC AND UCLA and just USC.

None of that is contradictory. Easy analogy...if I have a large pizza the value of garlic twists to me isn't that great. Don't get me wrong, they are awesome and are delicious, and they add value to the meal...but the pizza is the main course and I will be more than happy with just that if its all that is available. Now, if I have no food at all and am starving...the garlic twists are extremely valuable to me. The Pac12 is STARVING for the LA Market, to the point they may go for SDSU just to get something in Southern California at all.

Worth noting, the Pac12 commissioner is on record saying they are negotiating AT LEAST two deals right now. One with UCLA and one without. He will have hard values to present to the UC Regents. "If UCLA had stayed (or is forced to stay) Cal will get X per year. With them gone they get Y per year." Those exact dollar values WILL be available. This isn't a hypothetical here...

Also, they DID need UC's permission. If they didn't then there wouldn't be a conversation with the regents right now. The conversation would have been, "UCLA left the conference without permission!" "OK, why are you bothering us?". That's not the current conversation. Even when this first went down the first thing everyone was asking was did they get the Regents permission.

Lastly, yes...the result of the survey is they still want USC to be their rival and that is important to them. That has NOTHING to do with my point. My point is they are apprehensive about the new travel situation and that none of those concerns are being addressed by UCLA currently. If they have some great plan they should share it already.

Lets be honest here...UCLA and USC had until June 30th to withdraw from the Pac12 while avoiding penalties before the new contract negotiations. They made the decision at the last possible second. This decision was rushed on their behalf because a deadline had arrived, and they made the decision without a full set of data. The data they did have is 100 million >>>>> whatever they were going to get otherwise. The rush to do so before penalties would be levied is also why they didn't have time to stop to ask the regents for permission, and why they don't have a full plan yet on how to deal with the increased travel requirements.

That doesn't mean they can't/won't figure it out. But to pretend they had it all figured out before making the decision is fooling themselves.

---

I agree with you that UCLA probably did need the approval of the Regents to move to the BIG10

Based on the foregoing, I disagree with any conclusion that the Regents could in any way be liable if they reject the move by UCLA to the BIG10. And I disagree with the idea that (at present) UCLA has any kind of binding contract with the BIG10.

When entering into a contract it is alway better to ask for permission before entering into that contract than to ask for forgiveness later. If permission was necessary it was NECESSARY.

There can be no binding contract without that permission. The Regents can still agree to give that permission after the execution of the non-binding contract by UCLA. That process is referred to as "ratification" of an otherwise unenforceable contract. But written permission by the Regents is still required.

The foregoing analysis is basic contract law that every lawyer learns in first year of law school

As for UCLA's possible liability that is a different matter. If the BIG10 knew, or should have known, that UCLA required the permission of the Regents but proceeded anyway, UCLA likely has no liability.
But if UCLA lied to the Big 10 about not needing the Regents' approval, then UCLA might be looking at liability.
If on the other hand, UCLA said, we might need the Regents' approval, then there is likely no liability for UCLA.

---

Just because the B1G doesn't have a case doesn't mean they won't file a lawsuit. They just need to be annoying enough to make the Regents want to take another path. Chance are they would file for an injunction preventing UCLA from entering any other conference until the lawsuit is complete. If they dragged the law suit out past 2024 when UCLA officially exits the Pac12 it could be devastating to UCLA athletics. The longer UCLA is in limbo the worse it is for the existing (and any prospective) student athletes as well.

However likely that is to play out at least has to be considered by the Regents...not to mention legal fees.

Dream scenario for me personally is UCLA move gets blocked (potentially on purpose as they have second thoughts about the move, especially if the Pac can work a miracle on the media contracts and get decent value). They come back to the pac12, we add a San Diego State type team and we get a better than expected contract. UCLA can continue to play USC OOC yearly without issue I am sure, and they would remain rivals despite not being in the same conference.

More likely (but still good) scenario, B1G extends invites to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford to make a west coast pod. This avoids potential headaches all around and makes things easier, they are just waiting to see what we can get in the Pac12 now, add 10% to it and a slow ramp up to full membership. I hate to see Washington State / Oregon State pushed out of the P5 conferences, but this would be an opportunity Cal could not afford to pass up.

Most likely scenario, we get the with UCLA and without UCLA numbers and UCLA is forced to pay some fraction of the difference to Cal (for how long TBD). This is as much about punishing UCLA for putting the regents in this position as it is to benefit Cal. Cal attempts to stay relevant until the next wave of expansion (which will likely be when someone figures out how to break the ACC GoR).

I have zero doubt the B1G would love to expand to 24 teams poaching several strong candidates from the Pac12 and the ACC. I am just not sure how much they want to be a 20 team conference while waiting for that to happen.

---

I have a slightly different take on this. If UCLA were to renege on its deal to join the B1G (which I assume would be a breach of a contract signed by UCLA/B1G), I don't see that as a bad scenario for Cal/Pac11.

1. The B1G really only wanted USC, so I don't think they'd be too upset about losing UCLA. I have serious doubts they file a lawsuit to block UCLA from leaving - they might just walk away for a variety of reason.

2. A lawsuit creates a ton of uncertainty for the B1G and is a huge distraction to its efforts to grow and further expand. The lawsuit will drag on for years and the ultimate outcome would be uncertain. And I think its unlikely B1G gets any type of injunction forcing UCLA to play in the B1G. It would depend on the language in the contract, but as a practical matter I doubt a court goes that far and, if it did, does the B!G really want a member (UCLA) that is disgruntled and doesn't want to be there?

3. At the same time, the lawsuit doesn't really affect Pac11 in the short run. It gets the benefit of keeping UCLA/LA market. If it loses the lawsuit, its just a money payment at some point and probably not a huge one given that B1G doesn't place huge value on UCLA (i.e., B1G will have a hard time demonstrating damages if USC remains). Lawyers might call UCLA remaining in the Pac11 an "efficient breach".

4. Even if a lawsuit is filed, one of the possible outcomes is a settlement where Cal ends up in the B1G or there's some sort of conference alliance.

---

The only wrench in this argument is media contracts. What happens to the B1G contract if UCLA is removed. Do they renegotiate? Is there a set number that would be subtracted? If the B1G schools don't lose any money I doubt they would fight hard....but I'd it resulted in lower payouts for whatever reason they may. How much of a reduction is probably correlates to how hard they would fight.

From the regents perspective it's more about whether or not it would be worth the possible headache if they were to get sued. Somewhere someone has to be doing the math.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

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.

---

Eh, I think your post is a bit contradictory.

1. UCLA's Athletic Dept. is about $102 mil in debt. You can chalk that up to mismanagement or the necessity of providing all these non-revenue sports. We don't have that kind of debt. We have a different kind of debt that has now been spread to the University. Which is worse? Do we blame ourselves for the optimistic expectation of season tickets or seat licenses? I'm not sure what you expect UCLA to do when we are in a different kind of debt. Same type of mismanagement.

2. They didn't need the UC's permission.

3. We'll come back to this point below.

4. It is completely ridiculous to assume that this was done without assessing the effects of increased travel or "away time" on student academics or performance. Regardless, the survey reads that the athletes feel it is important to stay with USC.

As to your other remarks and as to your #3, you can't speak of punishment or damages to Cal without asking what that would look like or even how. If what you're saying is true, and the B1G only cared about USC (bringing UCLA as their dance partner), then it must follow that UCLA didn't really add the value to the Pac12 that you describe. And how could it? I've wrote repeatedly that the only metric is the existing media rights deal in terms of an exit fee. But if the new media rights deal for the P12 were to be used, how would one assess "damages" and how would any lost revenue of the new deal be attributed to UCLA? So, if you're saying that UCLA's exit from the Big10 deal would not have any impact to the B1G deal, then how could it possibly be impactful to UCLA leaving the P12?

USC was the driver in this. They took UCLA as a natural dance partner. B1G is in the driver seat as is ESPN or whatever network wants the P12. B1G has made their move. UCLA has too.

---

Having a presence in the LA Market has HUGE value. You don't need both USC AND UCLA to get that market. There are 3 values here:

Value of USC AND UCLA <--- highest
Value of just USC <---- only slightly lower than value of USC AND UCLA
Value of just UCLA <---- much greater than the difference in value of USC AND UCLA and just USC.

None of that is contradictory. Easy analogy...if I have a large pizza the value of garlic twists to me isn't that great. Don't get me wrong, they are awesome and are delicious, and they add value to the meal...but the pizza is the main course and I will be more than happy with just that if its all that is available. Now, if I have no food at all and am starving...the garlic twists are extremely valuable to me. The Pac12 is STARVING for the LA Market, to the point they may go for SDSU just to get something in Southern California at all.

Worth noting, the Pac12 commissioner is on record saying they are negotiating AT LEAST two deals right now. One with UCLA and one without. He will have hard values to present to the UC Regents. "If UCLA had stayed (or is forced to stay) Cal will get X per year. With them gone they get Y per year." Those exact dollar values WILL be available. This isn't a hypothetical here...

Also, they DID need UC's permission. If they didn't then there wouldn't be a conversation with the regents right now. The conversation would have been, "UCLA left the conference without permission!" "OK, why are you bothering us?". That's not the current conversation. Even when this first went down the first thing everyone was asking was did they get the Regents permission.

Lastly, yes...the result of the survey is they still want USC to be their rival and that is important to them. That has NOTHING to do with my point. My point is they are apprehensive about the new travel situation and that none of those concerns are being addressed by UCLA currently. If they have some great plan they should share it already.

Lets be honest here...UCLA and USC had until June 30th to withdraw from the Pac12 while avoiding penalties before the new contract negotiations. They made the decision at the last possible second. This decision was rushed on their behalf because a deadline had arrived, and they made the decision without a full set of data. The data they did have is 100 million >>>>> whatever they were going to get otherwise. The rush to do so before penalties would be levied is also why they didn't have time to stop to ask the regents for permission, and why they don't have a full plan yet on how to deal with the increased travel requirements.

That doesn't mean they can't/won't figure it out. But to pretend they had it all figured out before making the decision is fooling themselves.

---

I agree with you that UCLA probably did need the approval of the Regents to move to the BIG10

Based on the foregoing, I disagree with any conclusion that the Regents could in any way be liable if they reject the move by UCLA to the BIG10. And I disagree with the idea that (at present) UCLA has any kind of binding contract with the BIG10.

When entering into a contract it is alway better to ask for permission before entering into that contract than to ask for forgiveness later. If permission was necessary it was NECESSARY.

There can be no binding contract without that permission. The Regents can still agree to give that permission after the execution of the non-binding contract by UCLA. That process is referred to as "ratification" of an otherwise unenforceable contract. But written permission by the Regents is still required.

The foregoing analysis is basic contract law that every lawyer learns in first year of law school

As for UCLA's possible liability that is a different matter. If the BIG10 knew, or should have known, that UCLA required the permission of the Regents but proceeded anyway, UCLA likely has no liability.
But if UCLA lied to the Big 10 about not needing the Regents' approval, then UCLA might be looking at liability.
If on the other hand, UCLA said, we might need the Regents' approval, then there is likely no liability for UCLA.

---

Just because the B1G doesn't have a case doesn't mean they won't file a lawsuit. They just need to be annoying enough to make the Regents want to take another path. Chance are they would file for an injunction preventing UCLA from entering any other conference until the lawsuit is complete. If they dragged the law suit out past 2024 when UCLA officially exits the Pac12 it could be devastating to UCLA athletics. The longer UCLA is in limbo the worse it is for the existing (and any prospective) student athletes as well.

However likely that is to play out at least has to be considered by the Regents...not to mention legal fees.

Dream scenario for me personally is UCLA move gets blocked (potentially on purpose as they have second thoughts about the move, especially if the Pac can work a miracle on the media contracts and get decent value). They come back to the pac12, we add a San Diego State type team and we get a better than expected contract. UCLA can continue to play USC OOC yearly without issue I am sure, and they would remain rivals despite not being in the same conference.

More likely (but still good) scenario, B1G extends invites to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford to make a west coast pod. This avoids potential headaches all around and makes things easier, they are just waiting to see what we can get in the Pac12 now, add 10% to it and a slow ramp up to full membership. I hate to see Washington State / Oregon State pushed out of the P5 conferences, but this would be an opportunity Cal could not afford to pass up.

Most likely scenario, we get the with UCLA and without UCLA numbers and UCLA is forced to pay some fraction of the difference to Cal (for how long TBD). This is as much about punishing UCLA for putting the regents in this position as it is to benefit Cal. Cal attempts to stay relevant until the next wave of expansion (which will likely be when someone figures out how to break the ACC GoR).

I have zero doubt the B1G would love to expand to 24 teams poaching several strong candidates from the Pac12 and the ACC. I am just not sure how much they want to be a 20 team conference while waiting for that to happen.

---

I have a slightly different take on this. If UCLA were to renege on its deal to join the B1G (which I assume would be a breach of a contract signed by UCLA/B1G), I don't see that as a bad scenario for Cal/Pac11.

1. The B1G really only wanted USC, so I don't think they'd be too upset about losing UCLA. I have serious doubts they file a lawsuit to block UCLA from leaving - they might just walk away for a variety of reason.

2. A lawsuit creates a ton of uncertainty for the B1G and is a huge distraction to its efforts to grow and further expand. The lawsuit will drag on for years and the ultimate outcome would be uncertain. And I think its unlikely B1G gets any type of injunction forcing UCLA to play in the B1G. It would depend on the language in the contract, but as a practical matter I doubt a court goes that far and, if it did, does the B!G really want a member (UCLA) that is disgruntled and doesn't want to be there?

3. At the same time, the lawsuit doesn't really affect Pac11 in the short run. It gets the benefit of keeping UCLA/LA market. If it loses the lawsuit, its just a money payment at some point and probably not a huge one given that B1G doesn't place huge value on UCLA (i.e., B1G will have a hard time demonstrating damages if USC remains). Lawyers might call UCLA remaining in the Pac11 an "efficient breach".

4. Even if a lawsuit is filed, one of the possible outcomes is a settlement where Cal ends up in the B1G or there's some sort of conference alliance.

---

The only wrench in this argument is media contracts. What happens to the B1G contract if UCLA is removed. Do they renegotiate? Is there a set number that would be subtracted? If the B1G schools don't lose any money I doubt they would fight hard....but I'd it resulted in lower payouts for whatever reason they may. How much of a reduction is probably correlates to how hard they would fight.

From the regents perspective it's more about whether or not it would be worth the possible headache if they were to get sued. Somewhere someone has to be doing the math.

---

Admittedly I'm spit balling, but I don't think losing UCLA really impacts the B1G media contract. UCLA is receiving a full B1G share, mostly because they are joining with USC. My WAG is that its a push or possibly a win for B1G if UCLA bails.

Agree re regents perspective. Key factor is delta between Pac11 media contract and B1G offer to UCLA. It seems that's why they delayed the decision - to see what the Pac11 offer would be.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Admittedly I'm spit balling, but I don't think losing UCLA really impacts the B1G media contract. UCLA is receiving a full B1G share, mostly because they are joining with USC. My WAG is that its a push or possibly a win for B1G if UCLA bails.

---

BearSD said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Admittedly I'm spit balling, but I don't think losing UCLA really impacts the B1G media contract. UCLA is receiving a full B1G share, mostly because they are joining with USC. My WAG is that its a push or possibly a win for B1G if UCLA bails.

---

Fox is the driving force behind the USC/UCLA move. Fox wanted both USC and UCLA in the Big Ten because ESPN doesn't have any Big Ten rights in the next TV deal, so by getting both, Fox locked ESPN out of the LA TV market. Fox probably wanted to do that in retaliation for the ESPN-engineered move of Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC, a conference for which Fox has no TV rights.

If UCLA doesn't go to the Big Ten, then ESPN isn't locked out of LA. From Fox's point of view, USC + UCLA > USC + anyone else, even if, in the abstract, UCLA football isn't the second-most-valuable Pac-12 team.

---

Rushinbear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

We kept the Axe. We defended the house and kept it. I'm happy.

The way I see it, Cal is the mid sister. The stud letterman has invited the older hottie sister to prom but she will only go if the younger sister can come too. We can argue whether anyone feels good about that or not but - its true.

I think just from an intrinsic standpoint, we are looking at this completely different. You think the Regents can and should stop the UCLA move. I believe the can't and won't.

You feel there should be a penalty for violating UC process and damaging Cal. I disagree that any UC process was violated. I similarly think, while an exit fee to cover lost value should be assessed, it should not be punitive.

On these points, we disagree.

I will only add that I think the B1G is the driver in all of this. as another poster wrote about the B1G process for expansion and how deliberative it can be, I'm sure USC was thinking about leaving for at least 5 years. I mentioned earlier that I have cousins that went to USC. All of them have told me that it was USC that was getting short changed and was the only team that was driving the value of the Pac12 and because of getting sh*t on for years by the Pac 12, they finally decided enough was enough. Of course, they're USC alumni but I think there is probably alot of truth to USC complaints. And if they wanted to take UCLA as a condition for joining the Big 10, well ok. But it tells me that we shouldn't be blaming UCLA for an SC power move.

Lastly, I will write that if one were to assume that the Regents did block the move. And the new media rights deal only adds $15 million to each school - then what. The Regents will have been responsible for likely ending non-revenue sports at UCLA. They will also risk litigation (either from the B1G directly or their commercial partners). So, going back to my analogy, explain to me again why the B1G would tolerate the ugly sister (Cal) from a family (UC) that is making me (UCLA) do something that I don't want to do?

---

As mass media grew to dominate collegiate sports nationally. the weak position of the west coast in said media became increasingly weaker.

Instead of trying to think of ways to maximize what it can offer, SC went the corrupt and strong-arm ways to do it. UCLA went the spending way. Same with Washington. Oregon went the *****'s way - sold its body for big bucks. Stanford went the isolationist way. Cal went the thinking way, but had too few resources with which to implement its thinking, which turned to the bonfires of the intelligentsia.

If Knowlton ever developed a big picture plan, he got it wrong. He may have gone all in with it, but he didn't go big enough to foresee the inevitable. The big enough picture? Imagine how evil and corrupt the world has become and match your values up with that as best you can.

So, we're left with another mess, each one bigger and more complicated than the last. What to do? Go nuclear or go home or hope that the Pac comes up with a media deal that allows for the replacement of sc and ucla while they're injured as much as possible on their way out. At this point, they're owed nothing for their perfidy except a good kick in the ass.

---

philly1121 said:

---

But MrGPAC, we're not talking about sabotage. Sabotage is NOT what is happening here.

To sabotage something, it has to be a willful, deliberate act to deter or destroy something. By your analogy, it would mean that UCLA is leaving the Pac 12 to deliberately destroy or rather economically destroy Cal Athletics. And that's not the case at all.

The more proper use of sabotage is if WE tried to overtly or covertly to stop UCLA from joining the Big 10. Now I don't think that's the case from us or anyone including the Regents. But, no. UCLA is not sabotaging Cal or the Pac 12. Is it going to cost EVERYONE in the Pac 12 money? Yeah. That's the only thing that the Regents are considering I believe.

---

philly1121 said:

---

But MrGPAC, we're not talking about sabotage. Sabotage is NOT what is happening here.

To sabotage something, it has to be a willful, deliberate act to deter or destroy something. By your analogy, it would mean that UCLA is leaving the Pac 12 to deliberately destroy or rather economically destroy Cal Athletics. And that's not the case at all.

The more proper use of sabotage is if WE tried to overtly or covertly to stop UCLA from joining the Big 10. Now I don't think that's the case from us or anyone including the Regents. But, no. UCLA is not sabotaging Cal or the Pac 12. Is it going to cost EVERYONE in the Pac 12 money? Yeah. That's the only thing that the Regents are considering I believe.

---

MrGPAC said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

But MrGPAC, we're not talking about sabotage. Sabotage is NOT what is happening here.

To sabotage something, it has to be a willful, deliberate act to deter or destroy something. By your analogy, it would mean that UCLA is leaving the Pac 12 to deliberately destroy or rather economically destroy Cal Athletics. And that's not the case at all.

The more proper use of sabotage is if WE tried to overtly or covertly to stop UCLA from joining the Big 10. Now I don't think that's the case from us or anyone including the Regents. But, no. UCLA is not sabotaging Cal or the Pac 12. Is it going to cost EVERYONE in the Pac 12 money? Yeah. That's the only thing that the Regents are considering I believe.

---

Sabotage is a strong word and agreed it's the wrong one. The wording I believe is that UC campuses can't take actions that damage another UC campus. Intent has nothing to do with it. And this action taken by UCLA has definitely damaged Cal.

And yes, you could argue cal blocking UCLA from joining the B1G would be damaging UCLA. But we aren't talking about Cal blocking them. We are talking about the Regents blocking them.

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

But MrGPAC, we're not talking about sabotage. Sabotage is NOT what is happening here.

To sabotage something, it has to be a willful, deliberate act to deter or destroy something. By your analogy, it would mean that UCLA is leaving the Pac 12 to deliberately destroy or rather economically destroy Cal Athletics. And that's not the case at all.

The more proper use of sabotage is if WE tried to overtly or covertly to stop UCLA from joining the Big 10. Now I don't think that's the case from us or anyone including the Regents. But, no. UCLA is not sabotaging Cal or the Pac 12. Is it going to cost EVERYONE in the Pac 12 money? Yeah. That's the only thing that the Regents are considering I believe.

---

You seem to be going down a rabbit hole. UCLA's intent is irrelevant. The effect of their move has negative effects on Cal. That is all that matters to trigger the Regents rights vis a vis UCLA.

---

Rushinbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

But MrGPAC, we're not talking about sabotage. Sabotage is NOT what is happening here.

To sabotage something, it has to be a willful, deliberate act to deter or destroy something. By your analogy, it would mean that UCLA is leaving the Pac 12 to deliberately destroy or rather economically destroy Cal Athletics. And that's not the case at all.

The more proper use of sabotage is if WE tried to overtly or covertly to stop UCLA from joining the Big 10. Now I don't think that's the case from us or anyone including the Regents. But, no. UCLA is not sabotaging Cal or the Pac 12. Is it going to cost EVERYONE in the Pac 12 money? Yeah. That's the only thing that the Regents are considering I believe.

---

Sabotage is a strong word and agreed it's the wrong one. The wording I believe is that UC campuses can't take actions that damage another UC campus. Intent has nothing to do with it. And this action taken by UCLA has definitely damaged Cal.

And yes, you could argue cal blocking UCLA from joining the B1G would be damaging UCLA. But we aren't talking about Cal blocking them. We are talking about the Regents blocking them.

---

To stop a thief in the night is damaging the thief?

---

calumnus said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

But MrGPAC, we're not talking about sabotage. Sabotage is NOT what is happening here.

To sabotage something, it has to be a willful, deliberate act to deter or destroy something. By your analogy, it would mean that UCLA is leaving the Pac 12 to deliberately destroy or rather economically destroy Cal Athletics. And that's not the case at all.

The more proper use of sabotage is if WE tried to overtly or covertly to stop UCLA from joining the Big 10. Now I don't think that's the case from us or anyone including the Regents. But, no. UCLA is not sabotaging Cal or the Pac 12. Is it going to cost EVERYONE in the Pac 12 money? Yeah. That's the only thing that the Regents are considering I believe.

---

Sabotage is a strong word and agreed it's the wrong one. The wording I believe is that UC campuses can't take actions that damage another UC campus. Intent has nothing to do with it. And this action taken by UCLA has definitely damaged Cal.

And yes, you could argue cal blocking UCLA from joining the B1G would be damaging UCLA. But we aren't talking about Cal blocking them. We are talking about the Regents blocking them.

---

To stop a thief in the night is damaging the thief?

---

Who is the "thief" though? We and other weak Pac teams have been living off their value for decades. They decide to leave and take their value elsewhere and we are aggrieved? Aren't they the ones "stopping the thief in the night"? Or is that what you meant?

---