[Goose]

Newsom may grumble a lot, and then give in on the dough.

However... Will the UC Regents pony up an extra $30M-$40M PER YEAR to keep UCLA in the Pac-11? That's a lot.

Why do they have to? At least in theory they can just say you are staying and live with it. Maybe the UCLA athletic budget will take a hit but will it be so bad they can't continue? I doubt that. While many of us might believe that having U$C and UCLA in the B1G will turn out to be impractical, having U$C there alone would be an order of magnitude worse. Would the B1G even do that? For sure, it would be a mess and that alone may be a good thing :-).

Do I think the Regents will do that? I give it 25% probability. I give it 25% probability they issue a statement saying they don't like it but there is nothing they can do at "this late date". I give it a 50% probability they issue such a statement and fire the Chancellor of UCLA for not keeping them informed. AFAIK, they don't have a "President". The entire UC system does, but he is on the Board of Regents.  IMHO if that actually happened, he should be fired. Not informing the Regents about something of this magnitude is grounds for dismissal IMHO, but even better it provides a scapegoat.

[Goose]

Newsom may grumble a lot, and then give in on the dough.

However... Will the UC Regents pony up an extra $30M-$40M PER YEAR to keep UCLA in the Pac-11? That's a lot.

Why do they have to? At least in theory they can just say you are staying and live with it. Maybe the UCLA athletic budget will take a hit but will it be so bad they can't continue? I doubt that. While many of us might believe that having U$C and UCLA in the B1G will turn out to be impractical, having U$C there alone would be an order of magnitude worse. Would the B1G even do that? For sure, it would be a mess and that alone may be a good thing :-).

Do I think the Regents will do that? I give it 25% probability. I give it 25% probability they issue a statement saying they don't like it but there is nothing they can do at "this late date". I give it a 50% probability they issue such a statement and fire the Chancellor of UCLA for not keeping them informed. AFAIK, they don't have a "President". The entire UC system does, but he is on the Board of Regents.  IMHO if that actually happened, he should be fired. Not informing the Regents about something of this magnitude is grounds for dismissal IMHO, but even better it provides a scapegoat.