See below.Vandalus said:Rushinbear said:
The NYT is not the authority on anything.
Solid take. That opinion has nothing to do with your political affiliation at all I'm sure.
Regents Meeting on UCLA to Big 10 Today (12/14)
25,130 Views |
225 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by philly1121
This appears to be terribly challenging for you.
Perhaps you might want to do yourself a favor and re-read the quote (below) from Vandalus.
Either that, or actually look up the definition of hearsay . . . in which it is "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate." This clearly wasnt the case with NY Times reporter Billy Witz. It was substantiated by talking to the Chairman of the Board of Regents. - - - It wasnt made up or came out of thin air.
Never mind that the LA Times also reported from "sources" close to the Regents that there would be an annual payment to Cal.
Perhaps you might want to do yourself a favor and re-read the quote (below) from Vandalus.
Either that, or actually look up the definition of hearsay . . . in which it is "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate." This clearly wasnt the case with NY Times reporter Billy Witz. It was substantiated by talking to the Chairman of the Board of Regents. - - - It wasnt made up or came out of thin air.
Never mind that the LA Times also reported from "sources" close to the Regents that there would be an annual payment to Cal.
Vandulus said:
Admittedly, this is a pet peeve of mine, but using legal terms incorrectly is annoying. In a legal sense, the report and statements are by definition not hearsay. Secondly, whether you want to call it hearsay or conjecture, what you are really claiming is that what is stated in the NY Times article re the annual nature of the payment is a guess, or an opinion devoid of facts.
I don't know where you are getting that from. Just because it's not directly attributable in quotes does not mean that the information came from thin air and was invented by the reporter - as conjecture, guess, surmise or "hearsay." Clearly, the reporter spoke to multiple regents who voted. He then reported, in two separate sections of the article, that the payment (or "tax") was annual. Moreover, the UCLA AD was quoted in the article with a strong inference that they anticipated having to ship some money to us.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
DiabloWags said:
This appears to be terribly challenging for you.
Perhaps you might want to do yourself a favor and re-read the quote (below) from Vandalus.
Either that, or actually look up the definition of hearsay . . . in which it is "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate." This clearly wasnt the case with NY Times reporter Billy Witz. It was substantiated by talking to the Chairman of the Board of Regents. - - - It wasnt made up or came out of thin air.
Never mind that the LA Times also reported from "sources" close to the Regents that there would be an annual payment to Cal.Vandulus said:
Admittedly, this is a pet peeve of mine, but using legal terms incorrectly is annoying. In a legal sense, the report and statements are by definition not hearsay. Secondly, whether you want to call it hearsay or conjecture, what you are really claiming is that what is stated in the NY Times article re the annual nature of the payment is a guess, or an opinion devoid of facts.
I don't know where you are getting that from. Just because it's not directly attributable in quotes does not mean that the information came from thin air and was invented by the reporter - as conjecture, guess, surmise or "hearsay." Clearly, the reporter spoke to multiple regents who voted. He then reported, in two separate sections of the article, that the payment (or "tax") was annual. Moreover, the UCLA AD was quoted in the article with a strong inference that they anticipated having to ship some money to us.
It is absolutely hearsay until verified from the actual source. Can you all stop the ridiculous chest pounding and just realize that neither are 100% certain if it is a one time payment or annual payments? I hope it is annual. I think it is annual.
Still, SMH at this air of arrogance.
They don't need a stop gap or bulwark against the SEC? Hmm..that's a new take.
The ACC is the next target with the schools I mentioned. They don't go after them, the SEC will take them. The B1G has the "gold" as you say. But they don't have enough. Yet. They aren't going to waste time on going after us when they don't really have to. They would just wait until the conference dies in 5 years and pick up Oregon and Washington on the very very cheap.
We continue to not be relevant to the realignment conversation.
The ACC is the next target with the schools I mentioned. They don't go after them, the SEC will take them. The B1G has the "gold" as you say. But they don't have enough. Yet. They aren't going to waste time on going after us when they don't really have to. They would just wait until the conference dies in 5 years and pick up Oregon and Washington on the very very cheap.
We continue to not be relevant to the realignment conversation.
oski003 said:
It is absolutely hearsay until verified from the actual source. Can you all stop the ridiculous chest pounding and just realize that neither are 100% certain if it is a one time payment or annual payments? I hope it is annual. I think it is annual.
Still, SMH at this air of arrogance.
It's annual.
And as opposed to others here that welch on bets, I'm willing to bet $1,000 on it being an annual payment.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
I vote for the $10-million annual subsidy for Cal plus a matched set of steak knives.DiabloWags said:It's annual.oski003 said:
It is absolutely hearsay until verified from the actual source. Can you all stop the ridiculous chest pounding and just realize that neither are 100% certain if it is a one time payment or annual payments? I hope it is annual. I think it is annual.
Still, SMH at this air of arrogance.
And as opposed to others here that welch on bets, I'm willing to bet $1,000 on it being an annual payment.
"Those who say don't know, and those who know don't say." - LT
That's a great idea. If it's not annual then I would like to see a receipt of your $1,000 donation to the NIL collectiveDiabloWags said:oski003 said:
It is absolutely hearsay until verified from the actual source. Can you all stop the ridiculous chest pounding and just realize that neither are 100% certain if it is a one time payment or annual payments? I hope it is annual. I think it is annual.
Still, SMH at this air of arrogance.
It's annual.
And as opposed to others here that welch on bets, I'm willing to bet $1,000 on it being an annual payment.
DiabloWags said:oski003 said:
It is absolutely hearsay until verified from the actual source. Can you all stop the ridiculous chest pounding and just realize that neither are 100% certain if it is a one time payment or annual payments? I hope it is annual. I think it is annual.
Still, SMH at this air of arrogance.
It's annual.
And as opposed to others here that welch on bets, I'm willing to bet $1,000 on it being an annual payment.
Just don't be a pompous asshile who doesn't know the meaning of the word 'welch,' brags about how stupid others are, brags about ignoring posters yet tracks their posts, and then brags about his backordered porsche.
Calumnus,
The B1G already got what they came for with the P12. The new media rights deal locks teams into place for the duration of the contract. Or they do a buyout. But we are NOT doing that. So the deal will be what - 5-6 years? Nope. The B1G is turning to the ACC.
The B1G will have two WC teams dude. UCLA can play at 3, SC can play at 6.
As far as the ACC, raiding the ACC would give them some pressure to get Notre Dame. And if I have Notre Dame, I can put them in any timeslot against any team and they will pull viewership. You bring Clemson, FSU, and NC - that's 19 teams. Notre Dame will likely follow. You don't need Oregon, Washington, Stanford or us for the icing on the cake. the icing is ND.
And simply looking at recruiting in terms of "we need a game down in SoCal so we can recruit"? That is the OLD way of looking at recruiting. Recruits down in LA don't have a tv? Can we not buy them a ticket to come up to see a game at Cal? Can Wilcox and company not go down to LA to present them with an NIL package? Is there no provision of an NIL package that we fly up and accommodate a players family to watch a game at Memorial?
The B1G already got what they came for with the P12. The new media rights deal locks teams into place for the duration of the contract. Or they do a buyout. But we are NOT doing that. So the deal will be what - 5-6 years? Nope. The B1G is turning to the ACC.
The B1G will have two WC teams dude. UCLA can play at 3, SC can play at 6.
As far as the ACC, raiding the ACC would give them some pressure to get Notre Dame. And if I have Notre Dame, I can put them in any timeslot against any team and they will pull viewership. You bring Clemson, FSU, and NC - that's 19 teams. Notre Dame will likely follow. You don't need Oregon, Washington, Stanford or us for the icing on the cake. the icing is ND.
And simply looking at recruiting in terms of "we need a game down in SoCal so we can recruit"? That is the OLD way of looking at recruiting. Recruits down in LA don't have a tv? Can we not buy them a ticket to come up to see a game at Cal? Can Wilcox and company not go down to LA to present them with an NIL package? Is there no provision of an NIL package that we fly up and accommodate a players family to watch a game at Memorial?
I think you're still clinging to a very rosy view of realignment and the desire or need of the Big10 to choose Cal. We really don't figure into their plans at the moment or even 2-3 years down the line (and its those years that are critical).
Nothing that I have said or predicted has been wrong. The Regents were never going to stop UCLA.
The ACC is now the battleground for the Big10 and SEC. Who will break first. If Clemson, NC, FSU all break the GoR, then I think Notre Dame follows. Finally. Its just a question of whether these schools will pay to exit. They may not have to at all if the GoR can be tied directly to the media deal. If ESPN wants out - no GoR.
There's no way the Big10 goes to 30 teams. If they bring Clemson, FSU and NC, they may get ND. That's 20. They have what they came for on the West Coast. If they want a full nationwide presence, they go for OK State and perhaps a TCU, Iowa State, KState or West Virginia. That would get them to 22 with two left to fill to 24. They probably go for Oregon, Washington. They would have the East Coast, the Southeast, the Midwest, the Northwest, the Southwest and Southern Cali.
Admin needs to decide three issues: NIL, non-revenue sports and acceptance of realignment. They need to do so in less than 2 years.
Nothing that I have said or predicted has been wrong. The Regents were never going to stop UCLA.
The ACC is now the battleground for the Big10 and SEC. Who will break first. If Clemson, NC, FSU all break the GoR, then I think Notre Dame follows. Finally. Its just a question of whether these schools will pay to exit. They may not have to at all if the GoR can be tied directly to the media deal. If ESPN wants out - no GoR.
There's no way the Big10 goes to 30 teams. If they bring Clemson, FSU and NC, they may get ND. That's 20. They have what they came for on the West Coast. If they want a full nationwide presence, they go for OK State and perhaps a TCU, Iowa State, KState or West Virginia. That would get them to 22 with two left to fill to 24. They probably go for Oregon, Washington. They would have the East Coast, the Southeast, the Midwest, the Northwest, the Southwest and Southern Cali.
Admin needs to decide three issues: NIL, non-revenue sports and acceptance of realignment. They need to do so in less than 2 years.
philly1121 said:
I think you're still clinging to a very rosy view of realignment and the desire or need of the Big10 to choose Cal. We really don't figure into their plans at the moment or even 2-3 years down the line (and its those years that are critical).
Nothing that I have said or predicted has been wrong. The Regents were never going to stop UCLA.
The ACC is now the battleground for the Big10 and SEC. Who will break first. If Clemson, NC, FSU all break the GoR, then I think Notre Dame follows. Finally. Its just a question of whether these schools will pay to exit. They may not have to at all if the GoR can be tied directly to the media deal. If ESPN wants out - no GoR.
There's no way the Big10 goes to 30 teams. If they bring Clemson, FSU and NC, they may get ND. That's 20. They have what they came for on the West Coast. If they want a full nationwide presence, they go for OK State and perhaps a TCU, Iowa State, KState or West Virginia. That would get them to 22 with two left to fill to 24. They probably go for Oregon, Washington. They would have the East Coast, the Southeast, the Midwest, the Northwest, the Southwest and Southern Cali.
Admin needs to decide three issues: NIL, non-revenue sports and acceptance of realignment. They need to do so in less than 2 years.
And you are clinging to the very depressing idea that Cal provides zero value to the B1G.
There are two possible end games right now.
1) We stick at 5 "power conferences". The Pac12 is likely the bottom of the totem pole, but late night games continue to provide some value, and there is no desire by anyone to lose all of the regional fans in the western half of the country outside of LA. In this scenario Oregon/Washington very likely stay in the Pac.
2) We end up dwindling down to two super conferences, the B1G and the SEC. This is the end game I predict, with the GoR for the ACC being the biggest barrier to this reality. When down to two conferences those conferences (rather than the NCAA) can dictate the rules regarding athlete payments, recruiting, scholarships, etc. Its a grab for power and consolidating it into a few places.
The biggest blocker for the SEC/B1G going down this path has been the GoR on the ridiculously long contract for the ACC. It stopped them from expanding to include those schools, and is continuing to do so. The LAST thing the B1G/SEC wanted was the Big12 or the Pac12 ending up in similar scenarios. So they went for the jugular and took out the top teams in both of those conferences.
It is not a coincidence that a year after the SEC took Texas/Oklahoma from the Big12 that the B1G went after the Pac12. The best teams remaining in both conferences now are hesitant to sign ANYTHING long term, and are fighting for easy exit clauses in the event that the SEC/B1G come calling. Another ACC GoR is not going to get in the way of future expansion for teams from either conference.
Which brings us to whether or not Cal factors into the future plan of the two super conferences. I guess we are going to fundamentally disagree here. To me the following add up to too much value:
1) The Bay Area's media market
2) The LA teams history with the bay area teams
3) The number of B1G grads that live in the bay area
4) The value of additional late night media slots. Socal only would require EVERY home game to be a night game, with scheduling considerations to make sure at least one team has a home game every week. There will also be viewer fatigue if the Pac12 were to go away and the ONLY source would be those two teams only.
5) The B1G's valuation of good academics (as far as I can tell they want that to be a differentiator between the B1G and the SEC).
6) Travel considerations for the LA schools.
These reasons start to add up. There are a TON of reasons for the B1G to not be in any rush to expand further (especially until the GoR situation is resolved in the ACC). There were also a TON of reasons to go for the top teams to destabilize the conference to make it easier to go after in the future. I guess we will have to wait and see at this point.
The value of your points 3-6 are TBD since a lot is unknowns, but I see very little value in your points 1-2.MrGPAC said:philly1121 said:
I think you're still clinging to a very rosy view of realignment and the desire or need of the Big10 to choose Cal. We really don't figure into their plans at the moment or even 2-3 years down the line (and its those years that are critical).
Nothing that I have said or predicted has been wrong. The Regents were never going to stop UCLA.
The ACC is now the battleground for the Big10 and SEC. Who will break first. If Clemson, NC, FSU all break the GoR, then I think Notre Dame follows. Finally. Its just a question of whether these schools will pay to exit. They may not have to at all if the GoR can be tied directly to the media deal. If ESPN wants out - no GoR.
There's no way the Big10 goes to 30 teams. If they bring Clemson, FSU and NC, they may get ND. That's 20. They have what they came for on the West Coast. If they want a full nationwide presence, they go for OK State and perhaps a TCU, Iowa State, KState or West Virginia. That would get them to 22 with two left to fill to 24. They probably go for Oregon, Washington. They would have the East Coast, the Southeast, the Midwest, the Northwest, the Southwest and Southern Cali.
Admin needs to decide three issues: NIL, non-revenue sports and acceptance of realignment. They need to do so in less than 2 years.
And you are clinging to the very depressing idea that Cal provides zero value to the B1G.
There are two possible end games right now.
1) We stick at 5 "power conferences". The Pac12 is likely the bottom of the totem pole, but late night games continue to provide some value, and there is no desire by anyone to lose all of the regional fans in the western half of the country outside of LA. In this scenario Oregon/Washington very likely stay in the Pac.
2) We end up dwindling down to two super conferences, the B1G and the SEC. This is the end game I predict, with the GoR for the ACC being the biggest barrier to this reality. When down to two conferences those conferences (rather than the NCAA) can dictate the rules regarding athlete payments, recruiting, scholarships, etc. Its a grab for power and consolidating it into a few places.
The biggest blocker for the SEC/B1G going down this path has been the GoR on the ridiculously long contract for the ACC. It stopped them from expanding to include those schools, and is continuing to do so. The LAST thing the B1G/SEC wanted was the Big12 or the Pac12 ending up in similar scenarios. So they went for the jugular and took out the top teams in both of those conferences.
It is not a coincidence that a year after the SEC took Texas/Oklahoma from the Big12 that the B1G went after the Pac12. The best teams remaining in both conferences now are hesitant to sign ANYTHING long term, and are fighting for easy exit clauses in the event that the SEC/B1G come calling. Another ACC GoR is not going to get in the way of future expansion for teams from either conference.
Which brings us to whether or not Cal factors into the future plan of the two super conferences. I guess we are going to fundamentally disagree here. To me the following add up to too much value:
1) The Bay Area's media market
2) The LA teams history with the bay area teams
3) The number of B1G grads that live in the bay area
4) The value of additional late night media slots. Socal only would require EVERY home game to be a night game, with scheduling considerations to make sure at least one team has a home game every week. There will also be viewer fatigue if the Pac12 were to go away and the ONLY source would be those two teams only.
5) The B1G's valuation of good academics (as far as I can tell they want that to be a differentiator between the B1G and the SEC).
6) Travel considerations for the LA schools.
These reasons start to add up. There are a TON of reasons for the B1G to not be in any rush to expand further (especially until the GoR situation is resolved in the ACC). There were also a TON of reasons to go for the top teams to destabilize the conference to make it easier to go after in the future. I guess we will have to wait and see at this point.
#1 If you look at viewership of football in the Bay Area, the value of CFB is non-existent compared to NFL. All of our/Stanfurd's million plus viewer games were pulled by the opponents (blue bloods, ranked teams). When it's just us against middling talent, viewership is horrendous.
#2 The LA teams care much less about us than we do about them. I have a lot of USC and UCLA friends and they are much more interested in the rivalry against other top PAC teams (Washington, Oregon, Utah) as well as national contenders for CFP.
DoubtfulBear said:The value of your points 3-6 are TBD since a lot is unknowns, but I see very little value in your points 1-2.MrGPAC said:philly1121 said:
I think you're still clinging to a very rosy view of realignment and the desire or need of the Big10 to choose Cal. We really don't figure into their plans at the moment or even 2-3 years down the line (and its those years that are critical).
Nothing that I have said or predicted has been wrong. The Regents were never going to stop UCLA.
The ACC is now the battleground for the Big10 and SEC. Who will break first. If Clemson, NC, FSU all break the GoR, then I think Notre Dame follows. Finally. Its just a question of whether these schools will pay to exit. They may not have to at all if the GoR can be tied directly to the media deal. If ESPN wants out - no GoR.
There's no way the Big10 goes to 30 teams. If they bring Clemson, FSU and NC, they may get ND. That's 20. They have what they came for on the West Coast. If they want a full nationwide presence, they go for OK State and perhaps a TCU, Iowa State, KState or West Virginia. That would get them to 22 with two left to fill to 24. They probably go for Oregon, Washington. They would have the East Coast, the Southeast, the Midwest, the Northwest, the Southwest and Southern Cali.
Admin needs to decide three issues: NIL, non-revenue sports and acceptance of realignment. They need to do so in less than 2 years.
And you are clinging to the very depressing idea that Cal provides zero value to the B1G.
There are two possible end games right now.
1) We stick at 5 "power conferences". The Pac12 is likely the bottom of the totem pole, but late night games continue to provide some value, and there is no desire by anyone to lose all of the regional fans in the western half of the country outside of LA. In this scenario Oregon/Washington very likely stay in the Pac.
2) We end up dwindling down to two super conferences, the B1G and the SEC. This is the end game I predict, with the GoR for the ACC being the biggest barrier to this reality. When down to two conferences those conferences (rather than the NCAA) can dictate the rules regarding athlete payments, recruiting, scholarships, etc. Its a grab for power and consolidating it into a few places.
The biggest blocker for the SEC/B1G going down this path has been the GoR on the ridiculously long contract for the ACC. It stopped them from expanding to include those schools, and is continuing to do so. The LAST thing the B1G/SEC wanted was the Big12 or the Pac12 ending up in similar scenarios. So they went for the jugular and took out the top teams in both of those conferences.
It is not a coincidence that a year after the SEC took Texas/Oklahoma from the Big12 that the B1G went after the Pac12. The best teams remaining in both conferences now are hesitant to sign ANYTHING long term, and are fighting for easy exit clauses in the event that the SEC/B1G come calling. Another ACC GoR is not going to get in the way of future expansion for teams from either conference.
Which brings us to whether or not Cal factors into the future plan of the two super conferences. I guess we are going to fundamentally disagree here. To me the following add up to too much value:
1) The Bay Area's media market
2) The LA teams history with the bay area teams
3) The number of B1G grads that live in the bay area
4) The value of additional late night media slots. Socal only would require EVERY home game to be a night game, with scheduling considerations to make sure at least one team has a home game every week. There will also be viewer fatigue if the Pac12 were to go away and the ONLY source would be those two teams only.
5) The B1G's valuation of good academics (as far as I can tell they want that to be a differentiator between the B1G and the SEC).
6) Travel considerations for the LA schools.
These reasons start to add up. There are a TON of reasons for the B1G to not be in any rush to expand further (especially until the GoR situation is resolved in the ACC). There were also a TON of reasons to go for the top teams to destabilize the conference to make it easier to go after in the future. I guess we will have to wait and see at this point.
#1 If you look at viewership of football in the Bay Area, the value of CFB is non-existent compared to NFL. All of our/Stanfurd's million plus viewer games were pulled by the opponents (blue bloods, ranked teams). When it's just us against middling talent, viewership is horrendous.
#2 The LA teams care much less about us than we do about them. I have a lot of USC and UCLA friends and they are much more interested in the rivalry against other top PAC teams (Washington, Oregon, Utah) as well as national contenders for CFP.
Media market value is more than just who watches football games there. Media market is why Rutgers is a member of the B1G and their viewership is no better than ours.
You literally listed the best 3 teams in the Pac from the last decade outside of Stanford. That isn't a rivalry. That's wanting to beat the good teams on your schedule to pad your resume. Rivalries withstand your opponent being awful....and USC/UCLA would care as much about Utah as they do about Colorado when Utah hits a down turn in quality.
Its also about more than just rivalry. A lot of USC/UCLA grads live in norcal, and outside the idiotic decision to always play UCLA the weekend of thanksgiving these games are well attended by fans of both schools. Is it true that the rivalry isn't reciprocal in importance? Sure, I'll give you that. That doesn't mean the rivalry means nothing to the socal schools.
A LOT of emphasis seems to be being put on recent success when people talk about expansion. Let me ask this...Phil Knight isn't going to live forever. Lets say Oregon loses their golden parachute (or at least gets far less investment) from Nike and ends up being a mediocre football team. How valuable is a mediocre/bad Oregon to the B1G? Now ask the same question of a mediocre/bad Cal team.
Its also worth noting that when Cal had a good team in the not too distant past, we had packed stadiums and good viewership. The potential for Cal is huge. Sure, that potential is being horribly squandered right now, but the B1G has to be looking at the bigger picture when it comes to expansion. Not the past 5 seasons.
LOL you literally said the Regents couldn't stop Ucla because it would be a "taking." Get over yourself.philly1121 said:
Nothing that I have said or predicted has been wrong. The Regents were never going to stop UCLA.
The reporter did the best he could do to try and clarify something that was not clear, which was to ask those who were present in the meeting. They either relayed their understanding of what is supposed to happen, I guess based on the closed-session discussion, since the issue of annual or not annual was not discussed during the open portion, or based on their personal expectation that it will be an annual payment.
Bottom line, until there is a legal document that states what UCLA is required to do in terms of the payment, it's up in the air.
On a related question, should we now be trying to get UCLA and U$C booted from the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation, where we play them in water polo. They both also play men's volleyball in that conference. I say yes, because we want to maximize the pain for their athletes in all sports from moving to the BIG.
Bottom line, until there is a legal document that states what UCLA is required to do in terms of the payment, it's up in the air.
On a related question, should we now be trying to get UCLA and U$C booted from the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation, where we play them in water polo. They both also play men's volleyball in that conference. I say yes, because we want to maximize the pain for their athletes in all sports from moving to the BIG.
My man.Jeff82 said:
On a related question, should we now be trying to get UCLA and U$C booted from the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation, where we play them in water polo. They both also play men's volleyball in that conference. I say yes, because we want to maximize the pain for their athletes in all sports from moving to the BIG.
Until it dawns on the LA schools that all that travel takes its toll. Adding the Bay area schools means one close game a year and one less Rutgers. That would help to reassure parents of recruits.DoubtfulBear said:The value of your points 3-6 are TBD since a lot is unknowns, but I see very little value in your points 1-2.MrGPAC said:philly1121 said:
I think you're still clinging to a very rosy view of realignment and the desire or need of the Big10 to choose Cal. We really don't figure into their plans at the moment or even 2-3 years down the line (and its those years that are critical).
Nothing that I have said or predicted has been wrong. The Regents were never going to stop UCLA.
The ACC is now the battleground for the Big10 and SEC. Who will break first. If Clemson, NC, FSU all break the GoR, then I think Notre Dame follows. Finally. Its just a question of whether these schools will pay to exit. They may not have to at all if the GoR can be tied directly to the media deal. If ESPN wants out - no GoR.
There's no way the Big10 goes to 30 teams. If they bring Clemson, FSU and NC, they may get ND. That's 20. They have what they came for on the West Coast. If they want a full nationwide presence, they go for OK State and perhaps a TCU, Iowa State, KState or West Virginia. That would get them to 22 with two left to fill to 24. They probably go for Oregon, Washington. They would have the East Coast, the Southeast, the Midwest, the Northwest, the Southwest and Southern Cali.
Admin needs to decide three issues: NIL, non-revenue sports and acceptance of realignment. They need to do so in less than 2 years.
And you are clinging to the very depressing idea that Cal provides zero value to the B1G.
There are two possible end games right now.
1) We stick at 5 "power conferences". The Pac12 is likely the bottom of the totem pole, but late night games continue to provide some value, and there is no desire by anyone to lose all of the regional fans in the western half of the country outside of LA. In this scenario Oregon/Washington very likely stay in the Pac.
2) We end up dwindling down to two super conferences, the B1G and the SEC. This is the end game I predict, with the GoR for the ACC being the biggest barrier to this reality. When down to two conferences those conferences (rather than the NCAA) can dictate the rules regarding athlete payments, recruiting, scholarships, etc. Its a grab for power and consolidating it into a few places.
The biggest blocker for the SEC/B1G going down this path has been the GoR on the ridiculously long contract for the ACC. It stopped them from expanding to include those schools, and is continuing to do so. The LAST thing the B1G/SEC wanted was the Big12 or the Pac12 ending up in similar scenarios. So they went for the jugular and took out the top teams in both of those conferences.
It is not a coincidence that a year after the SEC took Texas/Oklahoma from the Big12 that the B1G went after the Pac12. The best teams remaining in both conferences now are hesitant to sign ANYTHING long term, and are fighting for easy exit clauses in the event that the SEC/B1G come calling. Another ACC GoR is not going to get in the way of future expansion for teams from either conference.
Which brings us to whether or not Cal factors into the future plan of the two super conferences. I guess we are going to fundamentally disagree here. To me the following add up to too much value:
1) The Bay Area's media market
2) The LA teams history with the bay area teams
3) The number of B1G grads that live in the bay area
4) The value of additional late night media slots. Socal only would require EVERY home game to be a night game, with scheduling considerations to make sure at least one team has a home game every week. There will also be viewer fatigue if the Pac12 were to go away and the ONLY source would be those two teams only.
5) The B1G's valuation of good academics (as far as I can tell they want that to be a differentiator between the B1G and the SEC).
6) Travel considerations for the LA schools.
These reasons start to add up. There are a TON of reasons for the B1G to not be in any rush to expand further (especially until the GoR situation is resolved in the ACC). There were also a TON of reasons to go for the top teams to destabilize the conference to make it easier to go after in the future. I guess we will have to wait and see at this point.
#1 If you look at viewership of football in the Bay Area, the value of CFB is non-existent compared to NFL. All of our/Stanfurd's million plus viewer games were pulled by the opponents (blue bloods, ranked teams). When it's just us against middling talent, viewership is horrendous.
#2 The LA teams care much less about us than we do about them. I have a lot of USC and UCLA friends and they are much more interested in the rivalry against other top PAC teams (Washington, Oregon, Utah) as well as national contenders for CFP.
Now, after taking a close look at it and figuring in what one would hope os an improved Pac deal, staying home might look like a much better alternative.Depends on the Pac deal.
Quote:
And you are clinging to the very depressing idea that Cal provides zero value to the B1G.
There are two possible end games right now.
1) We stick at 5 "power conferences". The Pac12 is likely the bottom of the totem pole, but late night games continue to provide some value, and there is no desire by anyone to lose all of the regional fans in the western half of the country outside of LA. In this scenario Oregon/Washington very likely stay in the Pac.
2) We end up dwindling down to two super conferences, the B1G and the SEC. This is the end game I predict, with the GoR for the ACC being the biggest barrier to this reality. When down to two conferences those conferences (rather than the NCAA) can dictate the rules regarding athlete payments, recruiting, scholarships, etc. Its a grab for power and consolidating it into a few places.
The biggest blocker for the SEC/B1G going down this path has been the GoR on the ridiculously long contract for the ACC. It stopped them from expanding to include those schools, and is continuing to do so. The LAST thing the B1G/SEC wanted was the Big12 or the Pac12 ending up in similar scenarios. So they went for the jugular and took out the top teams in both of those conferences.
It is not a coincidence that a year after the SEC took Texas/Oklahoma from the Big12 that the B1G went after the Pac12. The best teams remaining in both conferences now are hesitant to sign ANYTHING long term, and are fighting for easy exit clauses in the event that the SEC/B1G come calling. Another ACC GoR is not going to get in the way of future expansion for teams from either conference.
Which brings us to whether or not Cal factors into the future plan of the two super conferences. I guess we are going to fundamentally disagree here. To me the following add up to too much value:
1) The Bay Area's media market
2) The LA teams history with the bay area teams
3) The number of B1G grads that live in the bay area
4) The value of additional late night media slots. Socal only would require EVERY home game to be a night game, with scheduling considerations to make sure at least one team has a home game every week. There will also be viewer fatigue if the Pac12 were to go away and the ONLY source would be those two teams only.
5) The B1G's valuation of good academics (as far as I can tell they want that to be a differentiator between the B1G and the SEC).
6) Travel considerations for the LA schools.
These reasons start to add up. There are a TON of reasons for the B1G to not be in any rush to expand further (especially until the GoR situation is resolved in the ACC). There were also a TON of reasons to go for the top teams to destabilize the conference to make it easier to go after in the future. I guess we will have to wait and see at this point.
I'm not clinging to anything, Its reality. Let's address your points.
1. Late night games in the grand scheme of things mean nothing. A convenient placement of schools that do not rank high enough to play on Saturday morning, 1pm or 3pm - PST.
2. No, it will not devolve to 2 super conferences. If it did, we would see them break up inside of 6 years. No way the NCAA or Congress lets this happen.
The Grant of Rights is obsolete. There is no way a school won't jump prior to the end of the deal in 2036. More likely schools will jump in the next 3-6 years or sooner. When you compare what the B1G and SEC deals will be bringing in compared to the exit clause of $120 million. Its a drop in the bucket long term. If Clemson jumps to SEC or to B1G in the next cycle, expect Notre Dame to finally make up their mind. The GoR is likely no longer an impediment to realignment on the next cycle. Also, the only conference that signed a "long term" deal was the ACC. Which I'm sure the schools now regret. New B1G deal is 7 years. Right now, that seems like an eternity and is likely the new definition of long term. Expect the new P10 deal to be 5-6. But if that is the case, and ACC schools can jump when financially ready - the B1G will take ACC schools over P10 schools. P10 schools may be ready to jump sooner, but the B1G likely won't be ready or even want them. And there is not going to be another ACC GoR. Seriously?
As to your other points:
1. Bay Area media market. I see this over and over as well as the Rutgers comparison. Different demographics; different area; different media tastes. This is way overblown.
2. Tradition/Rivalry. This again?? This means nothing. LA schools don't care about us.
3. See demographics. Overblown and purely speculative.
4. P12 after dark? ugh. Did anyone actually see these games? Viewer fatigue from what? Watching UCLA or SC play in the Big10? If the P10 network goes away, then you may have a point in that more games will be on cable/satellite. If it stays, no one is going to have fatigue over USC or UCLA games against B1G schools.
5. Academics. Again, the old school way of thinking. They matter less and less - especially with regard to the transfer portal.
6. This matter has been resolved. Remember, Big 10 schools have to travel too. People make it seem like UCLA is going to be on a plane for 10 months out of the year.
I think it will be easier for the B1G to just wait until a Clemson or FSU comes along. FSU delivers Florida and I'm sure that's even more tasty than the Bay Area. Now, if a Clemson or FSU go to the SEC - then I think your scenario probably has more weight.
I guess I am skeptical because I think there is more demand (in respect to media) for more than 2 superconferences. We know that really the ONLY product right now that keeps eyesballs for "live" events is football.MrGPAC said:philly1121 said:
I think you're still clinging to a very rosy view of realignment and the desire or need of the Big10 to choose Cal. We really don't figure into their plans at the moment or even 2-3 years down the line (and its those years that are critical).
Nothing that I have said or predicted has been wrong. The Regents were never going to stop UCLA.
The ACC is now the battleground for the Big10 and SEC. Who will break first. If Clemson, NC, FSU all break the GoR, then I think Notre Dame follows. Finally. Its just a question of whether these schools will pay to exit. They may not have to at all if the GoR can be tied directly to the media deal. If ESPN wants out - no GoR.
There's no way the Big10 goes to 30 teams. If they bring Clemson, FSU and NC, they may get ND. That's 20. They have what they came for on the West Coast. If they want a full nationwide presence, they go for OK State and perhaps a TCU, Iowa State, KState or West Virginia. That would get them to 22 with two left to fill to 24. They probably go for Oregon, Washington. They would have the East Coast, the Southeast, the Midwest, the Northwest, the Southwest and Southern Cali.
Admin needs to decide three issues: NIL, non-revenue sports and acceptance of realignment. They need to do so in less than 2 years.
And you are clinging to the very depressing idea that Cal provides zero value to the B1G.
There are two possible end games right now.
1) We stick at 5 "power conferences". The Pac12 is likely the bottom of the totem pole, but late night games continue to provide some value, and there is no desire by anyone to lose all of the regional fans in the western half of the country outside of LA. In this scenario Oregon/Washington very likely stay in the Pac.
2) We end up dwindling down to two super conferences, the B1G and the SEC. This is the end game I predict, with the GoR for the ACC being the biggest barrier to this reality. When down to two conferences those conferences (rather than the NCAA) can dictate the rules regarding athlete payments, recruiting, scholarships, etc. Its a grab for power and consolidating it into a few places.
The biggest blocker for the SEC/B1G going down this path has been the GoR on the ridiculously long contract for the ACC. It stopped them from expanding to include those schools, and is continuing to do so. The LAST thing the B1G/SEC wanted was the Big12 or the Pac12 ending up in similar scenarios. So they went for the jugular and took out the top teams in both of those conferences.
It is not a coincidence that a year after the SEC took Texas/Oklahoma from the Big12 that the B1G went after the Pac12. The best teams remaining in both conferences now are hesitant to sign ANYTHING long term, and are fighting for easy exit clauses in the event that the SEC/B1G come calling. Another ACC GoR is not going to get in the way of future expansion for teams from either conference.
Which brings us to whether or not Cal factors into the future plan of the two super conferences. I guess we are going to fundamentally disagree here. To me the following add up to too much value:
1) The Bay Area's media market
2) The LA teams history with the bay area teams
3) The number of B1G grads that live in the bay area
4) The value of additional late night media slots. Socal only would require EVERY home game to be a night game, with scheduling considerations to make sure at least one team has a home game every week. There will also be viewer fatigue if the Pac12 were to go away and the ONLY source would be those two teams only.
5) The B1G's valuation of good academics (as far as I can tell they want that to be a differentiator between the B1G and the SEC).
6) Travel considerations for the LA schools.
These reasons start to add up. There are a TON of reasons for the B1G to not be in any rush to expand further (especially until the GoR situation is resolved in the ACC). There were also a TON of reasons to go for the top teams to destabilize the conference to make it easier to go after in the future. I guess we will have to wait and see at this point.
Take care of your Chicken
That is the entire value proposition of Big 12, they have parity, high scoring offenses, passionate regional fanbases, etc. For casual viewers theres the P2, for everyone else there is Big 12. The value of Pac12 is extremely low, particularly if the remaining schools of any value leave.socaltownie said:I guess I am skeptical because I think there is more demand (in respect to media) for more than 2 superconferences. We know that really the ONLY product right now that keeps eyesballs for "live" events is football.MrGPAC said:philly1121 said:
I think you're still clinging to a very rosy view of realignment and the desire or need of the Big10 to choose Cal. We really don't figure into their plans at the moment or even 2-3 years down the line (and its those years that are critical).
Nothing that I have said or predicted has been wrong. The Regents were never going to stop UCLA.
The ACC is now the battleground for the Big10 and SEC. Who will break first. If Clemson, NC, FSU all break the GoR, then I think Notre Dame follows. Finally. Its just a question of whether these schools will pay to exit. They may not have to at all if the GoR can be tied directly to the media deal. If ESPN wants out - no GoR.
There's no way the Big10 goes to 30 teams. If they bring Clemson, FSU and NC, they may get ND. That's 20. They have what they came for on the West Coast. If they want a full nationwide presence, they go for OK State and perhaps a TCU, Iowa State, KState or West Virginia. That would get them to 22 with two left to fill to 24. They probably go for Oregon, Washington. They would have the East Coast, the Southeast, the Midwest, the Northwest, the Southwest and Southern Cali.
Admin needs to decide three issues: NIL, non-revenue sports and acceptance of realignment. They need to do so in less than 2 years.
And you are clinging to the very depressing idea that Cal provides zero value to the B1G.
There are two possible end games right now.
1) We stick at 5 "power conferences". The Pac12 is likely the bottom of the totem pole, but late night games continue to provide some value, and there is no desire by anyone to lose all of the regional fans in the western half of the country outside of LA. In this scenario Oregon/Washington very likely stay in the Pac.
2) We end up dwindling down to two super conferences, the B1G and the SEC. This is the end game I predict, with the GoR for the ACC being the biggest barrier to this reality. When down to two conferences those conferences (rather than the NCAA) can dictate the rules regarding athlete payments, recruiting, scholarships, etc. Its a grab for power and consolidating it into a few places.
The biggest blocker for the SEC/B1G going down this path has been the GoR on the ridiculously long contract for the ACC. It stopped them from expanding to include those schools, and is continuing to do so. The LAST thing the B1G/SEC wanted was the Big12 or the Pac12 ending up in similar scenarios. So they went for the jugular and took out the top teams in both of those conferences.
It is not a coincidence that a year after the SEC took Texas/Oklahoma from the Big12 that the B1G went after the Pac12. The best teams remaining in both conferences now are hesitant to sign ANYTHING long term, and are fighting for easy exit clauses in the event that the SEC/B1G come calling. Another ACC GoR is not going to get in the way of future expansion for teams from either conference.
Which brings us to whether or not Cal factors into the future plan of the two super conferences. I guess we are going to fundamentally disagree here. To me the following add up to too much value:
1) The Bay Area's media market
2) The LA teams history with the bay area teams
3) The number of B1G grads that live in the bay area
4) The value of additional late night media slots. Socal only would require EVERY home game to be a night game, with scheduling considerations to make sure at least one team has a home game every week. There will also be viewer fatigue if the Pac12 were to go away and the ONLY source would be those two teams only.
5) The B1G's valuation of good academics (as far as I can tell they want that to be a differentiator between the B1G and the SEC).
6) Travel considerations for the LA schools.
These reasons start to add up. There are a TON of reasons for the B1G to not be in any rush to expand further (especially until the GoR situation is resolved in the ACC). There were also a TON of reasons to go for the top teams to destabilize the conference to make it easier to go after in the future. I guess we will have to wait and see at this point.
Of course there isn't going to be another huge GoR deal. The SEC and B1G made sure of that by cutting the heads off the other two power 5 conferences. Without those actions it may not have been as bad as the ACC GoR deal was in terms of number of years, but that doesn't mean they didn't stop an impediment from future expansion from growing by destabilizing the Pac12/Big12.
I am in 100% agreement that the B1G is going after ACC teams next. ACC is going to get sliced and diced and folded into the B1G and the SEC, leaving each at ~20 teams. I would actually guess Clemson goes to the SEC, but Florida State to the B1G.
At this point I still think the B1G is going to want 4 6 team pods, and yes that includes a west coast pod including Cal/Stanford/Oregon/Washington/USC/UCLA. Bottom line, it doesn't make sense to go beyond 16 teams UNLESS you are splitting up into pods, and it doesn't make sense to split into 4 pods unless you have at least ~24 teams. It doesn't make sense to go to 24 teams without schools from the ACC so they are standing pat at 16 and playing the waiting game.
That is IF we are looking at 2 super conferences, which appears to be what the $$$$ wants (ESPN / Fox have helped orchestrate the moving of Texas/Oklahoma/USC/UCLA to put us in this position). I think that is a short term gain long term loss, but its what the money is driving right now.
I do find it amusing that all of this is happening as we are FINALLY expanding the College Football Playoffs to something reasonable. 2 superconferences makes a LOT of sense with a 2-4 team playoff. 12 teams favors having more conferences. Perhaps that's why its finally happening now that realignment is taking over. One last ditch effort to save conferences as we know them.
I am in 100% agreement that the B1G is going after ACC teams next. ACC is going to get sliced and diced and folded into the B1G and the SEC, leaving each at ~20 teams. I would actually guess Clemson goes to the SEC, but Florida State to the B1G.
At this point I still think the B1G is going to want 4 6 team pods, and yes that includes a west coast pod including Cal/Stanford/Oregon/Washington/USC/UCLA. Bottom line, it doesn't make sense to go beyond 16 teams UNLESS you are splitting up into pods, and it doesn't make sense to split into 4 pods unless you have at least ~24 teams. It doesn't make sense to go to 24 teams without schools from the ACC so they are standing pat at 16 and playing the waiting game.
That is IF we are looking at 2 super conferences, which appears to be what the $$$$ wants (ESPN / Fox have helped orchestrate the moving of Texas/Oklahoma/USC/UCLA to put us in this position). I think that is a short term gain long term loss, but its what the money is driving right now.
I do find it amusing that all of this is happening as we are FINALLY expanding the College Football Playoffs to something reasonable. 2 superconferences makes a LOT of sense with a 2-4 team playoff. 12 teams favors having more conferences. Perhaps that's why its finally happening now that realignment is taking over. One last ditch effort to save conferences as we know them.
Eat it pal. It would be a taking. They would have taken UCLA's ability to enter into contracts. As well as any other UC. And the vote wasn't even close. 12-5. I said they couldn't and they wouldn't. And they didn't. Cry.WalterSobchak said:LOL you literally said the Regents couldn't stop Ucla because it would be a "taking." Get over yourself.philly1121 said:
Nothing that I have said or predicted has been wrong. The Regents were never going to stop UCLA.
Haha what a clown. You don't even know what a taking is.philly1121 said:Eat it pal. It would be a taking. They would have taken UCLA's ability to enter into contracts. As well as any other UC. And the vote wasn't even close. 12-5. I said they couldn't and they wouldn't. And they didn't. Cry.WalterSobchak said:LOL you literally said the Regents couldn't stop Ucla because it would be a "taking." Get over yourself.philly1121 said:
Nothing that I have said or predicted has been wrong. The Regents were never going to stop UCLA.
The only clown is you with your clown make up smearing from all the tears. That you had such optimism that the Regents actually had the authority to stop this move. Its more than I could have hoped for that you would squawk about it. I was hoping. You were the first and you didn't disappoint. lmaoWalterSobchak said:Haha what a clown. You don't even know what a taking is.philly1121 said:Eat it pal. It would be a taking. They would have taken UCLA's ability to enter into contracts. As well as any other UC. And the vote wasn't even close. 12-5. I said they couldn't and they wouldn't. And they didn't. Cry.WalterSobchak said:LOL you literally said the Regents couldn't stop Ucla because it would be a "taking." Get over yourself.philly1121 said:
Nothing that I have said or predicted has been wrong. The Regents were never going to stop UCLA.
Clown makeup smearing from all the tears? LOL Thank you for the laugh. Takes me back to grade school playground. Did the jerk store call too?philly1121 said:The only clown is you with your clown make up smearing from all the tears. That you had such optimism that the Regents actually had the authority to stop this move. Its more than I could have hoped for that you would squawk about it. I was hoping. You were the first and you didn't disappoint. lmaoWalterSobchak said:Haha what a clown. You don't even know what a taking is.philly1121 said:Eat it pal. It would be a taking. They would have taken UCLA's ability to enter into contracts. As well as any other UC. And the vote wasn't even close. 12-5. I said they couldn't and they wouldn't. And they didn't. Cry.WalterSobchak said:LOL you literally said the Regents couldn't stop Ucla because it would be a "taking." Get over yourself.philly1121 said:
Nothing that I have said or predicted has been wrong. The Regents were never going to stop UCLA.
Tell me more about things I never thought or said. The only thing I took issue with you about was whether the Regents had the authority to stop Ucla and what in God's name you thought the Takings Clause had to do with anything.
Explain this: If the Regents didn't have the authority to block this, why did they hold meetings on it? Why did they vote? What would have happened if 3 or 4 more voted no (it was actually 11-5)? What do you make of this direct quote from the Regents: "As discussed in those meetings, the Board of Regents can decide to exercise its authority to withdraw UCLA from its agreement with the Big Ten." https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/dec22/b2.pdf
Then explain takings for me. Explain your thesis that the Takings Clause bans the government from seizing private property. While you're at it, opine on what private property is at issue here. I'm also curious about whether you think this was physical or regulatory. What are your thoughts on what role, if any, the full economic benefit rule from Lucas would have played in the analysis.
You're a blowhard who likes to act smart about stuff you know nothing about and then lash out when someone calls you on it. Go sleep it off, you've obviously had enough to drink tonight. Or don't. Respond again and further prove what an imbecile you are to everyone here. Clown.
The only thing that matters, Perry Mason, is that I'm right and you were/are wrong. The taking would be characterized by the Regents ruling would have an economic impact on UCLA. I also think that it played a role in their decision because Regent policy would impact the media rights deal that UCLA entered into with the B1G. Since the Regents are a Trust or corporation created by the state of California, I would argue that it is the government that would impede UCLA from entering into the agreement.WalterSobchak said:Clown makeup smearing from all the tears? LOL Thank you for the laugh. Takes me back to grade school playground. Did the jerk store call too?philly1121 said:The only clown is you with your clown make up smearing from all the tears. That you had such optimism that the Regents actually had the authority to stop this move. Its more than I could have hoped for that you would squawk about it. I was hoping. You were the first and you didn't disappoint. lmaoWalterSobchak said:Haha what a clown. You don't even know what a taking is.philly1121 said:Eat it pal. It would be a taking. They would have taken UCLA's ability to enter into contracts. As well as any other UC. And the vote wasn't even close. 12-5. I said they couldn't and they wouldn't. And they didn't. Cry.WalterSobchak said:LOL you literally said the Regents couldn't stop Ucla because it would be a "taking." Get over yourself.philly1121 said:
Nothing that I have said or predicted has been wrong. The Regents were never going to stop UCLA.
Tell me more about things I never thought or said. The only thing I took issue with you about was whether the Regents had the authority to stop Ucla and what in God's name you thought the Takings Clause had to do with anything.
Explain this: If the Regents didn't have the authority to block this, why did they hold meetings on it? Why did they vote? What would have happened if 3 or 4 more voted no (it was actually 11-5)? What do you make of this direct quote from the Regents: "As discussed in those meetings, the Board of Regents can decide to exercise its authority to withdraw UCLA from its agreement with the Big Ten." https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/dec22/b2.pdf
Then explain takings for me. Explain your thesis that the Takings Clause bans the government from seizing private property. While you're at it, opine on what private property is at issue here. I'm also curious about whether you think this was physical or regulatory. What are your thoughts on what role, if any, the full economic benefit rule from Lucas would have played in the analysis.
You're a blowhard who likes to act smart about stuff you know nothing about and then lash out when someone calls you on it. Go sleep it off, you've obviously had enough to drink tonight. Or don't. Respond again and further prove what an imbecile you are to everyone here. Clown.
As I understand it, and as I believe my source at USC and the Regents said to me accurately, the Regents were faced with a dilemma - two policies that were in opposition to the other. One where they grant authority to the Chancellors and one that supposedly allows the Regents to withdraw that authority. The circumstances of that were never applied before except a couple of times.
So, yeah. I'm a blowhard that loves to shove it in peoples faces when they are wrong. Which is....drum roll....you.
So the Regents say they could have blocked the move, but you and your "source at USC" say they're wrong. Who to trust here? Hmmm, tough one.philly1121 said:The only thing that matters, Perry Mason, is that I'm right and you were/are wrong. The taking would be characterized by the Regents ruling would have an economic impact on UCLA. I also think that it played a role in their decision because Regent policy would impact the media rights deal that UCLA entered into with the B1G. Since the Regents are a Trust or corporation created by the state of California, I would argue that it is the government that would impede UCLA from entering into the agreement.WalterSobchak said:Clown makeup smearing from all the tears? LOL Thank you for the laugh. Takes me back to grade school playground. Did the jerk store call too?philly1121 said:The only clown is you with your clown make up smearing from all the tears. That you had such optimism that the Regents actually had the authority to stop this move. Its more than I could have hoped for that you would squawk about it. I was hoping. You were the first and you didn't disappoint. lmaoWalterSobchak said:Haha what a clown. You don't even know what a taking is.philly1121 said:Eat it pal. It would be a taking. They would have taken UCLA's ability to enter into contracts. As well as any other UC. And the vote wasn't even close. 12-5. I said they couldn't and they wouldn't. And they didn't. Cry.WalterSobchak said:LOL you literally said the Regents couldn't stop Ucla because it would be a "taking." Get over yourself.philly1121 said:
Nothing that I have said or predicted has been wrong. The Regents were never going to stop UCLA.
Tell me more about things I never thought or said. The only thing I took issue with you about was whether the Regents had the authority to stop Ucla and what in God's name you thought the Takings Clause had to do with anything.
Explain this: If the Regents didn't have the authority to block this, why did they hold meetings on it? Why did they vote? What would have happened if 3 or 4 more voted no (it was actually 11-5)? What do you make of this direct quote from the Regents: "As discussed in those meetings, the Board of Regents can decide to exercise its authority to withdraw UCLA from its agreement with the Big Ten." https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/dec22/b2.pdf
Then explain takings for me. Explain your thesis that the Takings Clause bans the government from seizing private property. While you're at it, opine on what private property is at issue here. I'm also curious about whether you think this was physical or regulatory. What are your thoughts on what role, if any, the full economic benefit rule from Lucas would have played in the analysis.
You're a blowhard who likes to act smart about stuff you know nothing about and then lash out when someone calls you on it. Go sleep it off, you've obviously had enough to drink tonight. Or don't. Respond again and further prove what an imbecile you are to everyone here. Clown.
As I understand it, and as I believe my source at USC and the Regents said to me accurately, the Regents were faced with a dilemma - two policies that were in opposition to the other. One where they grant authority to the Chancellors and one that supposedly allows the Regents to withdraw that authority. The circumstances of that were never applied before except a couple of times.
So, yeah. I'm a blowhard that loves to shove it in peoples faces when they are wrong. Which is....drum roll....you.
"The taking would be characterized by the Regents ruling would have an economic impact on UCLA." So eloquent. Care to translate that into a coherent thought that has anything whatsoever to do with the Takings Clause? Have you ever actually read the Takings Clause? It's pretty short. But the end is the important part.
Please keep going so everyone can laugh at you.
philly1121 said:
Calumnus,
The B1G already got what they came for with the P12. The new media rights deal locks teams into place for the duration of the contract. Or they do a buyout. But we are NOT doing that. So the deal will be what - 5-6 years? Nope. The B1G is turning to the ACC.
The B1G will have two WC teams dude. UCLA can play at 3, SC can play at 6.
As far as the ACC, raiding the ACC would give them some pressure to get Notre Dame. And if I have Notre Dame, I can put them in any timeslot against any team and they will pull viewership. You bring Clemson, FSU, and NC - that's 19 teams. Notre Dame will likely follow. You don't need Oregon, Washington, Stanford or us for the icing on the cake. the icing is ND.
And simply looking at recruiting in terms of "we need a game down in SoCal so we can recruit"? That is the OLD way of looking at recruiting. Recruits down in LA don't have a tv? Can we not buy them a ticket to come up to see a game at Cal? Can Wilcox and company not go down to LA to present them with an NIL package? Is there no provision of an NIL package that we fly up and accommodate a players family to watch a game at Memorial?
"UCLA can play at 3, USC at 6"
So uCLA and USC will only have home games and never have to travel?
If the B1G wants those slots every week they need 4 WC teams.
ucla should be careful of what they wish for...calumnus said:philly1121 said:
Calumnus,
The B1G already got what they came for with the P12. The new media rights deal locks teams into place for the duration of the contract. Or they do a buyout. But we are NOT doing that. So the deal will be what - 5-6 years? Nope. The B1G is turning to the ACC.
The B1G will have two WC teams dude. UCLA can play at 3, SC can play at 6.
As far as the ACC, raiding the ACC would give them some pressure to get Notre Dame. And if I have Notre Dame, I can put them in any timeslot against any team and they will pull viewership. You bring Clemson, FSU, and NC - that's 19 teams. Notre Dame will likely follow. You don't need Oregon, Washington, Stanford or us for the icing on the cake. the icing is ND.
And simply looking at recruiting in terms of "we need a game down in SoCal so we can recruit"? That is the OLD way of looking at recruiting. Recruits down in LA don't have a tv? Can we not buy them a ticket to come up to see a game at Cal? Can Wilcox and company not go down to LA to present them with an NIL package? Is there no provision of an NIL package that we fly up and accommodate a players family to watch a game at Memorial?
"UCLA can play at 3, USC at 6"
So uCLA and USC will only have home games and never have to travel?
If the B1G wants those slots every week they need 4 WC teams.
Doesn't the ucla money mean that they work for us now? More an independent contractor than an employee, since we don't have to pay the employer's share of FICA, Medi, etc. Should we give them sick leave, maternity leave? I don't think so. Vacation? Hell, no.Rushinbear said:ucla should be careful of what they wish for...calumnus said:philly1121 said:
Calumnus,
The B1G already got what they came for with the P12. The new media rights deal locks teams into place for the duration of the contract. Or they do a buyout. But we are NOT doing that. So the deal will be what - 5-6 years? Nope. The B1G is turning to the ACC.
The B1G will have two WC teams dude. UCLA can play at 3, SC can play at 6.
As far as the ACC, raiding the ACC would give them some pressure to get Notre Dame. And if I have Notre Dame, I can put them in any timeslot against any team and they will pull viewership. You bring Clemson, FSU, and NC - that's 19 teams. Notre Dame will likely follow. You don't need Oregon, Washington, Stanford or us for the icing on the cake. the icing is ND.
And simply looking at recruiting in terms of "we need a game down in SoCal so we can recruit"? That is the OLD way of looking at recruiting. Recruits down in LA don't have a tv? Can we not buy them a ticket to come up to see a game at Cal? Can Wilcox and company not go down to LA to present them with an NIL package? Is there no provision of an NIL package that we fly up and accommodate a players family to watch a game at Memorial?
"UCLA can play at 3, USC at 6"
So uCLA and USC will only have home games and never have to travel?
If the B1G wants those slots every week they need 4 WC teams.
Absolutely. We used to be their older brother, now we're their Godfather too.Rushinbear said:Doesn't the ucla money mean that they work for us now? More an independent contractor than an employee, since we don't have to pay the employer's share of FICA, Medi, etc. Should we give them sick leave, maternity leave? I don't think so. Vacation? Hell, no.Rushinbear said:ucla should be careful of what they wish for...calumnus said:philly1121 said:
Calumnus,
The B1G already got what they came for with the P12. The new media rights deal locks teams into place for the duration of the contract. Or they do a buyout. But we are NOT doing that. So the deal will be what - 5-6 years? Nope. The B1G is turning to the ACC.
The B1G will have two WC teams dude. UCLA can play at 3, SC can play at 6.
As far as the ACC, raiding the ACC would give them some pressure to get Notre Dame. And if I have Notre Dame, I can put them in any timeslot against any team and they will pull viewership. You bring Clemson, FSU, and NC - that's 19 teams. Notre Dame will likely follow. You don't need Oregon, Washington, Stanford or us for the icing on the cake. the icing is ND.
And simply looking at recruiting in terms of "we need a game down in SoCal so we can recruit"? That is the OLD way of looking at recruiting. Recruits down in LA don't have a tv? Can we not buy them a ticket to come up to see a game at Cal? Can Wilcox and company not go down to LA to present them with an NIL package? Is there no provision of an NIL package that we fly up and accommodate a players family to watch a game at Memorial?
"UCLA can play at 3, USC at 6"
So uCLA and USC will only have home games and never have to travel?
If the B1G wants those slots every week they need 4 WC teams.
calumnus said:philly1121 said:
Calumnus,
The B1G already got what they came for with the P12. The new media rights deal locks teams into place for the duration of the contract. Or they do a buyout. But we are NOT doing that. So the deal will be what - 5-6 years? Nope. The B1G is turning to the ACC.
The B1G will have two WC teams dude. UCLA can play at 3, SC can play at 6.
As far as the ACC, raiding the ACC would give them some pressure to get Notre Dame. And if I have Notre Dame, I can put them in any timeslot against any team and they will pull viewership. You bring Clemson, FSU, and NC - that's 19 teams. Notre Dame will likely follow. You don't need Oregon, Washington, Stanford or us for the icing on the cake. the icing is ND.
And simply looking at recruiting in terms of "we need a game down in SoCal so we can recruit"? That is the OLD way of looking at recruiting. Recruits down in LA don't have a tv? Can we not buy them a ticket to come up to see a game at Cal? Can Wilcox and company not go down to LA to present them with an NIL package? Is there no provision of an NIL package that we fly up and accommodate a players family to watch a game at Memorial?
"UCLA can play at 3, USC at 6"
So uCLA and USC will only have home games and never have to travel?
If the B1G wants those slots every week they need 4 WC teams.
6 teams in the west might be optimal, certainly not 2.
USC will be getting the 5pm or 1230pm slots a lot as the 3 competing networks will be drafting games. With only two Pacific Timezone teams as it stands now, even with UCLA playing every home game at night, they won't be able to fill that night slot every week. Not even close. There are bye weeks too. With 4 teams, that could mean over 1/2 of all home games played at night, with a heavier burden on teams not in the national title hunt.
I'd say 6 is better to spread the night games around to about 1/3 to 1/2 of each team's home schedule. Could also open up Friday night games. Would mean 5 local west coast conference games a year, and only 2 trips out east forward games instead of 4.
Walter - take the L like a man. I was right. I said it loud and clear from Day 1. I mean - if you want to continue to live in dreamland with your arguments - be my guest. Otherwise - move on.
Answer my questions. Should be so easy for you since you know everything.philly1121 said:
Walter - take the L like a man. I was right. I said it loud and clear from Day 1. I mean - if you want to continue to live in dreamland with your arguments - be my guest. Otherwise - move on.
Spoiler: You won't. You know you're a fraud. Apparently you enjoy making a fool out of yourself to people who actually understand these things. All I'm trying to point out is that your credibility is nil. If you're so obviously and belligerently wrong about these things, what else that you post is just pure fantasy? All of it? Probably.
Why you won't just admit you never should've brought takings into it, and admit you were wrong about the Regents' authority, is beyond me. You're pathetic. Sticking to your to your position in the face of contradictory proof does not make you look strong. Avoiding any substantive response does not make you look smart. You're essentially a petulant child. Congrats!
The Big Ten doesn't need the late west coast time slot at all.calumnus said:
"UCLA can play at 3, USC at 6"
So uCLA and USC will only have home games and never have to travel?
If the B1G wants those slots every week they need 4 WC teams.
Their new TV deal puts a game on Fox broadcast at 9 am PT, followed by a game on CBS at 12:30 and then a game on NBC at 5. The 5 pm time slot can be filled with any B1G home game.
Every B1G game other than those three will be on Big Ten Network, FS1, or one of the streaming services or "cable" channels owned by the networks mentioned above. They don't need football games that start at 7 or 7:30 pm PT.
TV won't want eastern or central time zone viewers watching "their" teams in games that end after midnight their time. When UCLA or USC now plays a Pac-12 opponent at 10:30 ET, it's no big deal because the vast majority of the viewers are in the west. In contrast, a TV exec whose network is paying for Big Ten games will think that they are needlessly losing potential viewers if Penn State, Ohio State, etc. plays in LA starting at 10:30 ET.
Featured Stories
See All
Saturday Spring Practice Notes
by Joaquin Ruiz
Cal Establishes Dedicated Basketball Practice Facility
by Cal Athletics
Friday Spring Practice Notes
by Joaquin Ruiz
From Physicality to Bagels: Meet Cal's inside linebacker room
by Joaquin Ruiz
Cal Football Spring Game Set For April 18
by Cal Athletics