Rushinbear said:

---

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?

---

No. If anything, we've been their patsy, playing them so that they could pad their record and reap the media rewards.

---

Lol

Eh well, I didn't put us in the rabbit hole with the sabotage argument. And UCLA's intent is budgetary solvency, not to destroy Cal. One of the effects of their departure may adversely impact Cal's but the impact is debatable in terms of size.

I think that would be UCLA's argument to anything put forth by the Regents.

Simple question: My Ohio State Buckeye friend asked me, why don't the regents tell them…. Sure, go ahead and go. We're going to sell the land. Why is this not an option?

tequila4kapp said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

---

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.

---

IMO the regents would and should be concerned about the effect of applying a principle as broad as that one.

Suppose that UC Berkeley scientists are awarded a very large and prestigious research grant, worth tens of millions of dollars each year. Further suppose that this award is so beneficial to UC Berkeley faculty in that research field that it has the effect of UCLA faculty in the same field losing out on various research grants, on the order of several million dollars per year.

Should that be reason enough for the regents to prevent UC Berkeley from accepting the huge research grant? Should we want the regents to have or to exercise that kind of power eagerly?

ReturnofTheMac said:

---

Simple question: My Ohio State Buckeye friend asked me, why don't the regents tell them…. Sure, go ahead and go. We're going to sell the land. Why is this not an option?

---

We don't want to dispose of the univ. Just that they acted as though they weren't part of UC.

BearSD said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

IMO the regents would and should be concerned about the effect of applying a principle as broad as that one.

Suppose that UC Berkeley scientists are awarded a very large and prestigious research grant, worth tens of millions of dollars each year. Further suppose that this award is so beneficial to UC Berkeley faculty in that research field that it has the effect of UCLA faculty in the same field losing out on various research grants, on the order of several million dollars per year.

Should that be reason enough for the regents to prevent UC Berkeley from accepting the huge research grant? Should we want the regents to have or to exercise that kind of power eagerly?

---

Did the Cal faculty steal the research from ucla faculty? That's what we're talking about here.

Rushinbear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

IMO the regents would and should be concerned about the effect of applying a principle as broad as that one.

Suppose that UC Berkeley scientists are awarded a very large and prestigious research grant, worth tens of millions of dollars each year. Further suppose that this award is so beneficial to UC Berkeley faculty in that research field that it has the effect of UCLA faculty in the same field losing out on various research grants, on the order of several million dollars per year.

Should that be reason enough for the regents to prevent UC Berkeley from accepting the huge research grant? Should we want the regents to have or to exercise that kind of power eagerly?

---

Did the Cal faculty steal the research from ucla faculty? That's what we're talking about here.

---

UCLA didn't steal a place in the Big Ten from Cal. UCLA was "awarded" a place in the Big Ten that Cal wasn't going to get anyway.

Cal making less TV money per year as a result is just a secondary effect, just as, in my hypothetical, UCLA faculty receiving less research money is just a secondary effect of Cal faculty winning a large and prestigious research grant.

ReturnofTheMac said:

---

Simple question: My Ohio State Buckeye friend asked me, why don't the regents tell them…. Sure, go ahead and go. We're going to sell the land. Why is this not an option?

---

Would be much easier to have the regents fire the UCLA chancellor and put someone in who would fire the AD and reneg on the deal. If that was their goal.

UCLA actually backing out on the deal would absolutely cause lawsuits though. The Regents cancelling the deal that they never agreed to would be an easier case to defend.

BearSD said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

IMO the regents would and should be concerned about the effect of applying a principle as broad as that one.

Suppose that UC Berkeley scientists are awarded a very large and prestigious research grant, worth tens of millions of dollars each year. Further suppose that this award is so beneficial to UC Berkeley faculty in that research field that it has the effect of UCLA faculty in the same field losing out on various research grants, on the order of several million dollars per year.

Should that be reason enough for the regents to prevent UC Berkeley from accepting the huge research grant? Should we want the regents to have or to exercise that kind of power eagerly?

---

Did the Cal faculty steal the research from ucla faculty? That's what we're talking about here.

---

UCLA didn't steal a place in the Big Ten from Cal. UCLA was "awarded" a place in the Big Ten that Cal wasn't going to get anyway.

Cal making less TV money per year as a result is just a secondary effect, just as, in my hypothetical, UCLA faculty receiving less research money is just a secondary effect of Cal faculty winning a large and prestigious research grant.

---

You still don't get it. I'm out.

BearSD said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

IMO the regents would and should be concerned about the effect of applying a principle as broad as that one.

Suppose that UC Berkeley scientists are awarded a very large and prestigious research grant, worth tens of millions of dollars each year. Further suppose that this award is so beneficial to UC Berkeley faculty in that research field that it has the effect of UCLA faculty in the same field losing out on various research grants, on the order of several million dollars per year.

Should that be reason enough for the regents to prevent UC Berkeley from accepting the huge research grant? Should we want the regents to have or to exercise that kind of power eagerly?

---

The hypothetical is flawed.

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.

---

The problem with your #2 is that it flies in the face of how the University operates and the defacto reason for the delegation to the respective Chancellors.

1) The OoP ALWAYS gets involves in figuring out academic decisions that would canabalize other UCs. For example, the creation of a new business school or other professional school is controlled by the OoP and Regents because of concern that if the respective campuses were allowed to make these decisions in a vacuum they would quickly find themselves in competition with each other. I am VERY familiar with a way in which this is worked out through the creation of intercampus research units - having been a fellow of one for graduate school.

2) The delegaion of conference affiliations to the campuses was really about D2 and d3 sports. The OoP rightly believed it wasn't qualified (or interested) in what Santa Cruz or UCSD (in the past) were doing with their conference affiliations. Bluntly the rise of the super conferences likely caught Oakland unaware and unfocused - believe it or not there are many that work in higher education who do not follow (or care) about NCAA athletics :-)

3) Thus see #1. Yes. You are technically correct about the conferences but what trumps that is all the other ways campuses are constrained because of impacts on other units. THat is why UCLA would be denied or forced to pay a "tax" if it is determined that Cal's payout from the Pac10 renewal is materially impacted by UCLAs move.

Now lets be precise. While WE care (not sure why but we do) if the payout is 10 million less for the OoP or Regents I am not sure that rises to the level as requiring action. If it rises to the level of 15 or 20? Sure.

BearSD said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

IMO the regents would and should be concerned about the effect of applying a principle as broad as that one.

Suppose that UC Berkeley scientists are awarded a very large and prestigious research grant, worth tens of millions of dollars each year. Further suppose that this award is so beneficial to UC Berkeley faculty in that research field that it has the effect of UCLA faculty in the same field losing out on various research grants, on the order of several million dollars per year.

Should that be reason enough for the regents to prevent UC Berkeley from accepting the huge research grant? Should we want the regents to have or to exercise that kind of power eagerly?

---

The example is too generic. The Regents ABSOLUTELY would get involved if it canabalized. I am not very aware of UCLA's individual strengths so I will use a Cal example.

Suppose UCLA found a donor who wanted to establish a "High energy physics lab". He explicitly wants it to compete with Lawerence Berkely Labs and Cals Physics department.

The regents ABSOLUTELY would step in and examine closely the impact on UCB. They MIGHT try to encourage UCLA to form an "intercampus research unit" and work out an equitable distribution of those funds to the campus to ensure that there is not canabalization. But they absolutely would get involved - because they don't want units competing with each other that much over NSF/DoE grants and they ABSOLUTELY don't want campuses bidding against each other for "off scale" faculty appointments as it hurts the system.

And here is another example. Cal or Stanta Cruz (or UCSB or Irvine) could probably establish, over time, a world class oceangraphic school. THey have the locaiton and the core faculty. But UCSD and SIO would throw a Fit. They would rightly note that there are limited resources for such research and that by doing so it will hurt SIO. They might (and have) worked things out for joint appointments and allowing faculty from other UCs to do research at SIO. But there is never going to be another Oceangraphic PhD granting school of note on any other UC campsus.

BearSD said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

---

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.

---

IMO the regents would and should be concerned about the effect of applying a principle as broad as that one.

Suppose that UC Berkeley scientists are awarded a very large and prestigious research grant, worth tens of millions of dollars each year. Further suppose that this award is so beneficial to UC Berkeley faculty in that research field that it has the effect of UCLA faculty in the same field losing out on various research grants, on the order of several million dollars per year.

Should that be reason enough for the regents to prevent UC Berkeley from accepting the huge research grant? Should we want the regents to have or to exercise that kind of power eagerly?

Interesting analogy. Well stated.

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearSD said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

IMO the regents would and should be concerned about the effect of applying a principle as broad as that one.

Suppose that UC Berkeley scientists are awarded a very large and prestigious research grant, worth tens of millions of dollars each year. Further suppose that this award is so beneficial to UC Berkeley faculty in that research field that it has the effect of UCLA faculty in the same field losing out on various research grants, on the order of several million dollars per year.

Should that be reason enough for the regents to prevent UC Berkeley from accepting the huge research grant? Should we want the regents to have or to exercise that kind of power eagerly?

---

The example is too generic. The Regents ABSOLUTELY would get involved if it canabalized. I am not very aware of UCLA's individual strengths so I will use a Cal example.

Suppose UCLA found a donor who wanted to establish a "High energy physics lab". He explicitly wants it to compete with Lawerence Berkely Labs and Cals Physics department.

The regents ABSOLUTELY would step in and examine closely the impact on UCB. They MIGHT try to encourage UCLA to form an "intercampus research unit" and work out an equitable distribution of those funds to the campus to ensure that there is not canabalization. But they absolutely would get involved - because they don't want units competing with each other that much over NSF/DoE grants and they ABSOLUTELY don't want campuses bidding against each other for "off scale" faculty appointments as it hurts the system.

And here is another example. Cal or Stanta Cruz (or UCSB or Irvine) could probably establish, over time, a world class oceangraphic school. THey have the locaiton and the core faculty. But UCSD and SIO would throw a Fit. They would rightly note that there are limited resources for such research and that by doing so it will hurt SIO. They might (and have) worked things out for joint appointments and allowing faculty from other UCs to do research at SIO. But there is never going to be another Oceangraphic PhD granting school of note on any other UC campsus.

---

Also well stated. Probably why Cal has the only undergrad business school and UCLA has the only true film school.

socaltownie said:

---

BearSD said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

IMO the regents would and should be concerned about the effect of applying a principle as broad as that one.

Suppose that UC Berkeley scientists are awarded a very large and prestigious research grant, worth tens of millions of dollars each year. Further suppose that this award is so beneficial to UC Berkeley faculty in that research field that it has the effect of UCLA faculty in the same field losing out on various research grants, on the order of several million dollars per year.

Should that be reason enough for the regents to prevent UC Berkeley from accepting the huge research grant? Should we want the regents to have or to exercise that kind of power eagerly?

---

The example is too generic. The Regents ABSOLUTELY would get involved if it canabalized. I am not very aware of UCLA's individual strengths so I will use a Cal example.

Suppose UCLA found a donor who wanted to establish a "High energy physics lab". He explicitly wants it to compete with Lawerence Berkely Labs and Cals Physics department.

The regents ABSOLUTELY would step in and examine closely the impact on UCB. They MIGHT try to encourage UCLA to form an "intercampus research unit" and work out an equitable distribution of those funds to the campus to ensure that there is not canabalization. But they absolutely would get involved - because they don't want units competing with each other that much over NSF/DoE grants and they ABSOLUTELY don't want campuses bidding against each other for "off scale" faculty appointments as it hurts the system.

And here is another example. Cal or Stanta Cruz (or UCSB or Irvine) could probably establish, over time, a world class oceangraphic school. THey have the locaiton and the core faculty. But UCSD and SIO would throw a Fit. They would rightly note that there are limited resources for such research and that by doing so it will hurt SIO. They might (and have) worked things out for joint appointments and allowing faculty from other UCs to do research at SIO. But there is never going to be another Oceangraphic PhD granting school of note on any other UC campsus.

---

UC campuses already compete with each other all the time. UC Berkeley has tenured professors who were hired away from other UC campuses. UC Berkeley hired the dean of UC Irvine's law school to be dean at Berkeley Law. The regents have not blocked and would not block any such moves.

The notion that any contract entered into by administrators of a UC campus is at risk of being blocked by the regents on the ground that a different UC campus could be adversely affected is so broad as to be absurd.

The regents don't want businesses, other universities, or government entities to think that every deal made by a UC campus is shaky because another UC campus might persuade the regents to nullify it.

BearSD said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

IMO the regents would and should be concerned about the effect of applying a principle as broad as that one.

Suppose that UC Berkeley scientists are awarded a very large and prestigious research grant, worth tens of millions of dollars each year. Further suppose that this award is so beneficial to UC Berkeley faculty in that research field that it has the effect of UCLA faculty in the same field losing out on various research grants, on the order of several million dollars per year.

Should that be reason enough for the regents to prevent UC Berkeley from accepting the huge research grant? Should we want the regents to have or to exercise that kind of power eagerly?

---

Your hypothetical isn't really analogous unless the Cal and UCLA scientists were in a shared research grant program and the Cal scientists left that program for a bigger research grant opportunity and then without the Cal scientists on board, the UCLA scientist lost grant money they otherwise would have received had the Cal scientists stayed.

That's very different from Cal and UCLA scientists competing after the same research grant money and only one group winning. That analogy isn't at all comparable to the conference realignment situation the Regents are currently debating.

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Eh well, I didn't put us in the rabbit hole with the sabotage argument. And UCLA's intent is budgetary solvency, not to destroy Cal. One of the effects of their departure may adversely impact Cal's but the impact is debatable in terms of size.

---

Did UCLA intend to leave the Pac-12? Yes.
Was it reasonably foreseeable that UCLA leaving the Pac-12 would cause financial damage to Cal? Answer is almost certainly yes. Kliavkoff is in the process of determining by how much.
Did UCLA have a duty to avoid financially damaging Cal? Yes, but this is at the discretion of the Regents.

Whether UCLA intended to harm Cal is a non-factor. At the end of the day, UCLA committed an intentional act that caused financial harm to Cal and whether the Regents intend to act on it is at their discretion.

---

Of course, they knew. A moron would know that instinctively. ucla thought, "f__k Cal. We're going for the money."

From the top then?

As to your opening. Authority is delegated to the Chancellors to enter into contracts. UCLA found an opening. Maybe that's why the UC is going to tighten the reins so that this won't happen again. Despite this, they can't stop UCLA.

1. This point is not and was never in dispute.
2. Whether it was for D2 or D3 is irrelevant. UCLA saw an opening and walked through it.
3. I have never disputed that UCLA will pay an exit fee. I have disputed the amount that people seem to think it will be. Any exit fee will be "compensatory".

I can't see any exit fee being more than $50 mil over the course of whatever the new media rights deal will be. Since it seems that the deal is 4-5 years, we may be looking at $3-9 million per year. To me, that would be the adjusted value of UCLA leaving the conference or, put another way, the value that they were adding to the conference.

oski003 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearSD said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

IMO the regents would and should be concerned about the effect of applying a principle as broad as that one.

Suppose that UC Berkeley scientists are awarded a very large and prestigious research grant, worth tens of millions of dollars each year. Further suppose that this award is so beneficial to UC Berkeley faculty in that research field that it has the effect of UCLA faculty in the same field losing out on various research grants, on the order of several million dollars per year.

Should that be reason enough for the regents to prevent UC Berkeley from accepting the huge research grant? Should we want the regents to have or to exercise that kind of power eagerly?

---

The example is too generic. The Regents ABSOLUTELY would get involved if it canabalized. I am not very aware of UCLA's individual strengths so I will use a Cal example.

Suppose UCLA found a donor who wanted to establish a "High energy physics lab". He explicitly wants it to compete with Lawerence Berkely Labs and Cals Physics department.

The regents ABSOLUTELY would step in and examine closely the impact on UCB. They MIGHT try to encourage UCLA to form an "intercampus research unit" and work out an equitable distribution of those funds to the campus to ensure that there is not canabalization. But they absolutely would get involved - because they don't want units competing with each other that much over NSF/DoE grants and they ABSOLUTELY don't want campuses bidding against each other for "off scale" faculty appointments as it hurts the system.

And here is another example. Cal or Stanta Cruz (or UCSB or Irvine) could probably establish, over time, a world class oceangraphic school. THey have the locaiton and the core faculty. But UCSD and SIO would throw a Fit. They would rightly note that there are limited resources for such research and that by doing so it will hurt SIO. They might (and have) worked things out for joint appointments and allowing faculty from other UCs to do research at SIO. But there is never going to be another Oceangraphic PhD granting school of note on any other UC campsus.

---

UC campuses already compete with each other all the time. UC Berkeley has tenured professors who were hired away from other UC campuses. UC Berkeley hired the dean of UC Irvine's law school to be dean at Berkeley Law. The regents have not blocked and would not block any such moves.

The notion that any contract entered into by administrators of a UC campus is at risk of being blocked by the regents on the ground that a different UC campus could be adversely affected is so broad as to be absurd.

The regents don't want businesses, other universities, or government entities to think that every deal made by a UC campus is shaky because another UC campus might persuade the regents to nullify it.

---

Berkeley just scalped the Dean with no discussions with UCI or the UC System? I HIGHLY DOUBT THAT.

---

Why would you doubt it? Faculty move from one university to another all the time. It would be bad form to try to prevent a professor or dean from moving, even when a university doesn't want to lose someone.

Here's another example: A chemistry professor, who now has an endowed chair at UC Berkeley, who was poached from the UC San Diego faculty.

BearSD said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearSD said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

IMO the regents would and should be concerned about the effect of applying a principle as broad as that one.

Suppose that UC Berkeley scientists are awarded a very large and prestigious research grant, worth tens of millions of dollars each year. Further suppose that this award is so beneficial to UC Berkeley faculty in that research field that it has the effect of UCLA faculty in the same field losing out on various research grants, on the order of several million dollars per year.

Should that be reason enough for the regents to prevent UC Berkeley from accepting the huge research grant? Should we want the regents to have or to exercise that kind of power eagerly?

---

The example is too generic. The Regents ABSOLUTELY would get involved if it canabalized. I am not very aware of UCLA's individual strengths so I will use a Cal example.

Suppose UCLA found a donor who wanted to establish a "High energy physics lab". He explicitly wants it to compete with Lawerence Berkely Labs and Cals Physics department.

The regents ABSOLUTELY would step in and examine closely the impact on UCB. They MIGHT try to encourage UCLA to form an "intercampus research unit" and work out an equitable distribution of those funds to the campus to ensure that there is not canabalization. But they absolutely would get involved - because they don't want units competing with each other that much over NSF/DoE grants and they ABSOLUTELY don't want campuses bidding against each other for "off scale" faculty appointments as it hurts the system.

And here is another example. Cal or Stanta Cruz (or UCSB or Irvine) could probably establish, over time, a world class oceangraphic school. THey have the locaiton and the core faculty. But UCSD and SIO would throw a Fit. They would rightly note that there are limited resources for such research and that by doing so it will hurt SIO. They might (and have) worked things out for joint appointments and allowing faculty from other UCs to do research at SIO. But there is never going to be another Oceangraphic PhD granting school of note on any other UC campsus.

---

UC campuses already compete with each other all the time. UC Berkeley has tenured professors who were hired away from other UC campuses. UC Berkeley hired the dean of UC Irvine's law school to be dean at Berkeley Law. The regents have not blocked and would not block any such moves.

The notion that any contract entered into by administrators of a UC campus is at risk of being blocked by the regents on the ground that a different UC campus could be adversely affected is so broad as to be absurd.

The regents don't want businesses, other universities, or government entities to think that every deal made by a UC campus is shaky because another UC campus might persuade the regents to nullify it.

---

Berkeley just scalped the Dean with no discussions with UCI or the UC System? I HIGHLY DOUBT THAT.

---

Why would you doubt it? Faculty move from one university to another all the time. It would be bad form to try to prevent a professor or dean from moving, even when a university doesn't want to lose someone.

Here's another example: A chemistry professor, who now has an endowed chair at UC Berkeley, who was poached from the UC San Diego faculty.

---

Nice gotcha link name. Not sure the circumstances that existed when this faculty member was "poached" in 1994. I stand by what I said regarding hiring a dean from another UC.

philly1121 said:

---

Berserkeley, this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. Contrary to popular opinion, we are not the most important team in college football. Or the Pac12. And we are talking about sports are we not? Not some contract for cancer research or some contract with shady Venezuelan business partner.

---

No one on this page has said anything to the contrary.

Quote:

---

UCLA intended to leave the Pac 12 so that they could resolve their financial difficulties. If we were any better at football or had a better and more recent pedigree of success, we would have walked through that same door and never looked back.

Was it reasonable to assume that UCLA knew that Cal would be adversely impacted? Of course! None of us are saying otherwise. But - so what? Is this not business?

And seriously, UCLA has a duty to not financially harm Cal? I mean really?! What about self-inflicted harm? What about the stadium debt? What about our shattered deal with FTX?

---

No one on this page has suggested any school should be liable for another school's self inflicted harm.

And, yes, UCLA (like all UCs) has a duty to not financially harm sister campuses because all campuses are apart of the same university system. The Regents decide such things and, at their discretion, may decide that, on the whole, UCLA's move to the Big Ten does not harm the UC system.

Quote:

---

And how wonderful it is to know that the UC Regents are relying on the Pac12 commissioner to assess how much financial harm UCLA is causing us. Perhaps the Regents ought to put their own work in, sit down with UCLA's and Cal's chancellors and AD's and figure this out. Kliavkoff will no doubt high ball the number that UCLA was bringing to the table.

---

They will assess how much harm based Kliavkoff providing them with two sets of numbers; a deal for Pac-12 media rights with UCLA and a deal for Pac-12 media rights without UCLA. The dollar figure in those deals will come from the media partners, not Kliavkoff.

Individual faculty members move all the time. Again, the best example is why ucsc or cal or ucsb do not have colleges that compete with scripps. They don't because the Regents will not allow it.


Seriously, trust me on this. I have been involved and obseved uc office of president decision making for decades.

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

---

Quote:

---

---

Quote:

---

---

They will assess how much harm based Kliavkoff providing them with two sets of numbers; a deal for Pac-12 media rights with UCLA and a deal for Pac-12 media rights without UCLA. The dollar figure in those deals will come from the media partners, not Kliavkoff.

---

The dolllar figures will probably be provided by media consultants, not by ESPN or Fox or Amazon. Whatever the source, if those numbers assume that UCLA stays and no other Pac program leaves, that would be questionable. If UCLA stayed, the Big Ten would add another Pac member to join along with USC.

That means the real difference in TV value here is not "Pac minus USC and UCLA" vs. "Pac minus only USC", but rather something like "Pac minus USC and UCLA" vs. "Pac minus USC and Oregon".

BearSD said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

---

Quote:

---

---

Quote:

---

---

They will assess how much harm based Kliavkoff providing them with two sets of numbers; a deal for Pac-12 media rights with UCLA and a deal for Pac-12 media rights without UCLA. The dollar figure in those deals will come from the media partners, not Kliavkoff.

---

The dolllar figures will probably be provided by media consultants, not by ESPN or Fox or Amazon. Whatever the source, if those numbers assume that UCLA stays and no other Pac program leaves, that would be questionable. If UCLA stayed, the Big Ten would add another Pac member to join along with USC.

That means the real difference in TV value here is not "Pac minus USC and UCLA" vs. "Pac minus only USC", but rather something like "Pac minus USC and UCLA" vs. "Pac minus USC and Oregon".

---

And because we are not the entire PAC, for Cal, it is only 10% of the difference. Thus, It is almost impossible for this move to not be a net financial benefit for "UC."

philly1121 said:

---

Berserkeley, this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. Contrary to popular opinion, we are not the most important team in college football. Or the Pac12. And we are talking about sports are we not? Not some contract for cancer research or some contract with shady Venezuelan business partner.

UCLA intended to leave the Pac 12 so that they could resolve their financial difficulties. If we were any better at football or had a better and more recent pedigree of success, we would have walked through that same door and never looked back.

Was it reasonable to assume that UCLA knew that Cal would be adversely impacted? Of course! None of us are saying otherwise. But - so what? Is this not business?

And seriously, UCLA has a duty to not financially harm Cal? I mean really?! What about self-inflicted harm? What about the stadium debt? What about our shattered deal with FTX?

And how wonderful it is to know that the UC Regents are relying on the Pac12 commissioner to assess how much financial harm UCLA is causing us. Perhaps the Regents ought to put their own work in, sit down with UCLA's and Cal's chancellors and AD's and figure this out. Kliavkoff will no doubt high ball the number that UCLA was bringing to the table.

---

the stadium was a fixed asset investment planned in the open over tiime so that everyone had a chance to chime in. This was thief in the night.

Did they have the power to do this on their own and in secret? No. Will they get away with it? Yes. Pols will always cave on something like this (well, almost always).