[OutsiderFan]

While the UC Regents has to at least be nervous at the moment, my completely uniformed opinion is UCLA goes to the Big 10 without too many problems.

My equally completely uniformed opinion agrees with you. However, I do think there is a non-zero chance we are both wrong. I am beginning to wonder if some UCLA staff and alums aren't happy about this and are prodding/working the Regents. The litigation risk was always there and nobody said anything. Why now after supposedly all is said and done?

The reporting on this is all over the place, so one has to take what they read with much salt - particularly as I have read several incompatible stories. 
With that caveat, my impression from several articles is that the UC President (former president of Ohio State) knew about the move and decided that the various campuses have autonomy to do what they wish on athletics without consulting the Board of Regents. Now, the Board of Regents seems to be thinking otherwise. While university boards don't usually buck their presidents, it does happen - particularly on political hot potatoes.

So are you saying the UCLA move was an inside job of sorts? Did the UC President get something in return for recommending the UC schools operate autonomously when it comes to sports, so the UC Regents wouldn't get involved and potentially block UCLA from leaving the Pac for Big Ten? Could the UC Regents now be pissed they were duped and didn't get a say on such a significant matter, and now want the full board to weigh in?

[OutsiderFan]

While the UC Regents has to at least be nervous at the moment, my completely uniformed opinion is UCLA goes to the Big 10 without too many problems.

My equally completely uniformed opinion agrees with you. However, I do think there is a non-zero chance we are both wrong. I am beginning to wonder if some UCLA staff and alums aren't happy about this and are prodding/working the Regents. The litigation risk was always there and nobody said anything. Why now after supposedly all is said and done?

The reporting on this is all over the place, so one has to take what they read with much salt - particularly as I have read several incompatible stories. 
With that caveat, my impression from several articles is that the UC President (former president of Ohio State) knew about the move and decided that the various campuses have autonomy to do what they wish on athletics without consulting the Board of Regents. Now, the Board of Regents seems to be thinking otherwise. While university boards don't usually buck their presidents, it does happen - particularly on political hot potatoes.

So are you saying the UCLA move was an inside job of sorts? Did the UC President get something in return for recommending the UC schools operate autonomously when it comes to sports, so the UC Regents wouldn't get involved and potentially block UCLA from leaving the Pac for Big Ten? Could the UC Regents now be pissed they were duped and didn't get a say on such a significant matter, and now want the full board to weigh in?