BigDaddy said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

The only part that doesn't jive is the whole Fox said now or never thing.

The news broke literally hours before UCLA/USC would have been locked into the next Pac contract. If they had waited one more day they would have been on the hook for exit fees. It was the Pac that supplied the deadline, not Fox.

---

Maybe this wasn't clear. FOX didn't tell UCLA 24 hours before the B!G announcement they needed to make a decision. They told them that, I think, more than a month or two before; "we need to know you're totally committed and moving forward, or we're moving on to another program."

I think there was some frustration with the speed of the UCLA process and that call created the urgency that ultimately streamlined and expedited things on the UCLA end,

---

So, ucla kept it quiet, knowing that if they said anything to the Regents, the process would have been drawn out and would probably have failed. So, they snuck around like thieves in the night.

The ucla admins better hit homers on everything else in the next 5 years or this will get them fired toot sweet.

Rushinbear said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

The only part that doesn't jive is the whole Fox said now or never thing.

The news broke literally hours before UCLA/USC would have been locked into the next Pac contract. If they had waited one more day they would have been on the hook for exit fees. It was the Pac that supplied the deadline, not Fox.

---

Maybe this wasn't clear. FOX didn't tell UCLA 24 hours before the B!G announcement they needed to make a decision. They told them that, I think, more than a month or two before; "we need to know you're totally committed and moving forward, or we're moving on to another program."

I think there was some frustration with the speed of the UCLA process and that call created the urgency that ultimately streamlined and expedited things on the UCLA end,

---

So, ucla kept it quiet, knowing that if they said anything to the Regents, the process would have been drawn out and would probably have failed. So, they snuck around like thieves in the night.

The ucla admins better hit homers on everything else in the next 5 years or this will get them fired toot sweet.

---

They were competent. Why tell anyone when you know they know nothing and will only jeopardize a no-brainer decision. UCLA got lucky and took advantage. Cal, if given the same predicament, would have screwed it up.

I don't think it was thieves in the night - it was a covert operation to save their program. Wish someone was trying to save ours.

Econ141 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

The only part that doesn't jive is the whole Fox said now or never thing.

The news broke literally hours before UCLA/USC would have been locked into the next Pac contract. If they had waited one more day they would have been on the hook for exit fees. It was the Pac that supplied the deadline, not Fox.

---

Maybe this wasn't clear. FOX didn't tell UCLA 24 hours before the B!G announcement they needed to make a decision. They told them that, I think, more than a month or two before; "we need to know you're totally committed and moving forward, or we're moving on to another program."

I think there was some frustration with the speed of the UCLA process and that call created the urgency that ultimately streamlined and expedited things on the UCLA end,

---

So, ucla kept it quiet, knowing that if they said anything to the Regents, the process would have been drawn out and would probably have failed. So, they snuck around like thieves in the night.

The ucla admins better hit homers on everything else in the next 5 years or this will get them fired toot sweet.

---

Why tell anyone when you know they know nothing and will only jeopardize a no-brainer decision.

---

Because you are part of a bigger system that incorporates public money that isn't yours or campus's. It is allocated to you by virtue of complex procedures designed to eliminate this kind of one-upsmanship.

Would Cal screw UCD out of their due in order to save a few bucks that we spent irresponsibly? We're a lot of things but we're not that.

Thieves in the night.

Thieves doesn't seem like the right word usage. What did they steal? Besides our pride?

We are getting compensated with the tax. The rivalry? Tradition?

I suppose we could say they weren't forthright. But, this is business.

philly1121 said:

---

Thieves doesn't seem like the right word usage. What did they steal? Besides our pride?

We are getting compensated with the tax. The rivalry? Tradition?

I suppose we could say they weren't forthright. But, this is business.

---

More like a partner in a firm that leaves to a new firm without having told anyone he is in negotiations, or maybe a significant other that leaves while you are down the block buying a strawberry pop…

philly1121 said:

---

Thieves doesn't seem like the right word usage. What did they steal? Besides our pride?

We are getting compensated with the tax. The rivalry? Tradition?

I suppose we could say they weren't forthright. But, this is business.

---

We are getting compensated for a reason. They caused damage to our valuation by pulling out of the conference. It would be similar to us agreeing to be partners with UCLA on a big fusion project for ~100 years, then getting offered more money to work with MIT and bailing on them in the middle of the night, leaving them with a mountain of debt from investments they made in the project. Not many people want to work with UCLA without Berkeley's name being attached to the project.

I agree thieves doesn't feel like the right term...but they clearly did something wrong. Its easy to argue that it would have been impossible to do the right way...but the way they did it was definitely not the "right way".

Eh, no. That analogy would imply that UCLA bailed on us in the middle of the night and it thereby left us with debt that was accumulated with or on behalf of UCLA for playing football with them. That is not the case here.

UCLA leaving the conference does not mean that we don't get to continue playing football.
UCLA leaving doesn't even mean we won't get to play them again. At least after a period of time.
UCLA leaving does not mean they are responsible for football debt and/or debt from the athletic department that we have accumulated on our own as a "requirement" for continuing to play football against UCLA or other members of the Pac 12.

I'm sure many schools work with UCLA without our involvement. Are there specific non-athletic projects that schools or orgs don't want to work with UCLA if we aren't involved? Athletic wise?

It may not have been done with full transparency, but I don't think there was any thievery involved or that UCLA did something wrong. I think the tax, while arbitrary in terms of dollar amount is probably being looked at by UCLA as the "cost of doing business". Like Signor Ferrari says to Rick in Casablanca - when Rick questions why his shipments are always missing things - "carrying charges, my boy".

You are verifiably clueless. What is so hard to understand that from a UC perspective, it's far better to have the two member schools remain in the same conference? Has it not been spelled out enough for you?

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

You are verifiably clueless. What is so hard to understand that from a UC perspective, it's far better to have the two member schools remain in the same conference? Has it not been spelled out enough for you?

---

Lol that's not the UC perspective. That's our perspective.

It's guaranteed that the Regents would not have approved the move had it been brought to them first, like any other campus in the country would have taken it to their board. If you doubt this just remember where the governor is from. The fact that they had delegated the power shows their lack of governance ability but allowing the move to proceed because of the issues overturning the agreement would cause is not active support.

Rushinbear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

The only part that doesn't jive is the whole Fox said now or never thing.

The news broke literally hours before UCLA/USC would have been locked into the next Pac contract. If they had waited one more day they would have been on the hook for exit fees. It was the Pac that supplied the deadline, not Fox.

---

Maybe this wasn't clear. FOX didn't tell UCLA 24 hours before the B!G announcement they needed to make a decision. They told them that, I think, more than a month or two before; "we need to know you're totally committed and moving forward, or we're moving on to another program."

I think there was some frustration with the speed of the UCLA process and that call created the urgency that ultimately streamlined and expedited things on the UCLA end,

---

So, ucla kept it quiet, knowing that if they said anything to the Regents, the process would have been drawn out and would probably have failed. So, they snuck around like thieves in the night.

The ucla admins better hit homers on everything else in the next 5 years or this will get them fired toot sweet.

---

Why tell anyone when you know they know nothing and will only jeopardize a no-brainer decision.

---

Because you are part of a bigger system that incorporates public money that isn't yours or campus's. It is allocated to you by virtue of complex procedures designed to eliminate this kind of one-upsmanship.

Would Cal screw UCD out of their due in order to save a few bucks that we spent irresponsibly? We're a lot of things but we're not that.

Thieves in the night.

---

Their only wrongdoing was morally, not legally by "complex procedures". Just like our only victories this days are moral ones as well.

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

You are verifiably clueless. What is so hard to understand that from a UC perspective, it's far better to have the two member schools remain in the same conference? Has it not been spelled out enough for you?

---

There are more than two member schools.

From a UC perspective, more money is better. That is why the Regents approved UCLA's move. That we were able to get a concession just shows that we still have some political clout, it does not prove that we were wronged or the payment is really justified.

The real hope is that we get a similar good deal, maybe with an invite to the B1G too.

What is clear from the testimony from both UCLA and Cal and the UC's President must have competitive revenue teams or that there would be serious financial fallout to both schools. Kinda of ironic to hear that said so publicly by those parties.

wifeisafurd said:

---

What is clear from the testimony from both UCLA and Cal and the UC's President must have competitive revenue teams or that there would be serious financial fallout to both schools. Kinda of ironic to hear that said so publicly by those parties.

---

WIAF - I did not know about the above. If this is true - is there any pressure from the top on Carol and Knowlton to correct what is going on with our two beloved revenue sports? I mean we seem historically bad and it doesn't appear any transformative structural changes are being made to fix the problems. It's like a leaking dam where things are getting worse (e.g. traditions being forgotten, GameDay experience, etc).

philly1121 said:

---

Eh, no. That analogy would imply that UCLA bailed on us in the middle of the night and it thereby left us with debt that was accumulated with or on behalf of UCLA for playing football with them. That is not the case here.

UCLA leaving the conference does not mean that we don't get to continue playing football.
UCLA leaving doesn't even mean we won't get to play them again. At least after a period of time.
UCLA leaving does not mean they are responsible for football debt and/or debt from the athletic department that we have accumulated on our own as a "requirement" for continuing to play football against UCLA or other members of the Pac 12.

I'm sure many schools work with UCLA without our involvement. Are there specific non-athletic projects that schools or orgs don't want to work with UCLA if we aren't involved? Athletic wise?

It may not have been done with full transparency, but I don't think there was any thievery involved or that UCLA did something wrong. I think the tax, while arbitrary in terms of dollar amount is probably being looked at by UCLA as the "cost of doing business". Like Signor Ferrari says to Rick in Casablanca - when Rick questions why his shipments are always missing things - "carrying charges, my boy".

---

Perhaps I used a dated euphemism and those with an opposite opinion have tried to discredit it by taking it literally. Except, I can't imagine that they don't know darned well the point I was making. Quibbling comes in handy sometimes, but those with clear vision got it.

Disagree. I mean, they announced they were leaving in June? So, 6 months ago? Would it have mattered if the Regents had 6 more months to decide this stuff? Not on the basis of how they decided.