[Goose]

I don’t understand why some people think the Regents should get involved in issues pertaining to the conference membership of UC schools.  It is a decision that should be made based upon the interests of each specific campus.  

Berkeley will lose no stature academically should the athletic department fold up and UCLA will not gain any academically notoriety should they choose to spend millions more on the athletic program.  

The Regents should be focusing their attention on academic  policy decisions that impact the entire system and not worry about whether Rutgers or Oregon State travels to southern California in the fall.

That's not the real world. Money rules everything. Cal's academic profile will absolutely be impacted if it has no sports programs, and so too will diversity on campus, and myriad of other issues. The UC Regents can't just focus on academics and otherwise live in a vacuum.

I agree about money, but not necessarily your reasoning. However, one of the "myriad of other issues" is that any action that reduces the ability of Kal to make money, which the UCLA action certainly does, potentially will create a need for the State to replace said money at Kal. Therefore, the Regents have a duty to evaluate that situation and take appropriate action if necessary. At best, they are equally surprised as the rest of us and should call a TO to see if this action is feasible/desirable from the State's point of view.

[Goose]

I don’t understand why some people think the Regents should get involved in issues pertaining to the conference membership of UC schools.  It is a decision that should be made based upon the interests of each specific campus.  

Berkeley will lose no stature academically should the athletic department fold up and UCLA will not gain any academically notoriety should they choose to spend millions more on the athletic program.  

The Regents should be focusing their attention on academic  policy decisions that impact the entire system and not worry about whether Rutgers or Oregon State travels to southern California in the fall.

That's not the real world. Money rules everything. Cal's academic profile will absolutely be impacted if it has no sports programs, and so too will diversity on campus, and myriad of other issues. The UC Regents can't just focus on academics and otherwise live in a vacuum.

I agree about money, but not necessarily your reasoning. However, one of the "myriad of other issues" is that any action that reduces the ability of Kal to make money, which the UCLA action certainly does, potentially will create a need for the State to replace said money at Kal. Therefore, the Regents have a duty to evaluate that situation and take appropriate action if necessary. At best, they are equally surprised as the rest of us and should call a TO to see if this action is feasible/desirable from the State's point of view.