[OCcardinal]

People often talk about the Board of Regents and individual UCs as if they are separate entities.  They aren't.  The UCs collectively have one governing body, the board of regents, which governs all of the UCs.  That board appoints a single President for the UCs collectively.  The Chancellor for each University campus is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Board, on recommendation of and in consultation with the single UC President.  

Saying the regents can't overrule UCLA's athletic department is like saying a corporate BOD can't overrule a decision made by middle management.  Under most corporate structures, boards and company presidents delegate authority down through the management chain for individuals to enter into contracts without preapproval of senior management or the BOD.  (You can't function otherwise.)  And that's the case here. Usually that delegation threshold is based on dollar value, but in this case the regents had delegated the authority of individual UC campuses to enter into certain athletics-related contracts without pre-approval by the UC President or the regents themselves.  It seems that the regents didn't contemplate that that delegation would include entering into a conference realignment agreement that would leave a fellow UC campus in the dust.  The impact of UCLA's decision on Cal is absolutely something that the regents should consider (just like the BOD of a conglomerate would be concerned of how the actions of various subsidiaries impact each other).

The Board of Regents attorney confirmed some time ago that within the Board's power to delegate authority to enter into contracts, is also the power to revoke that delegation at any time, either prospectively or retroactively.  So it is 100% up to the regents to decide what they want to do.  Per a recent NYT article, it seems they have been hoping this would work itself out (e.g., Cal getting invited to the Big 10 too or UCLA just deciding to stay due to alumni pressure, which exists to some degree).  They are quite concerned about the impact of the additional travel requirements on students, but if the Big 10 picked off more West Coast schools that concern would be lessened.

I've seen some commentators assert that the UC system would would have to pay a $$$ financial penalty to the Big 10 if UCLA were to stay in the Pac 12. But, to my knowledge, the terms of that contract, including whether there is any specified termination fee, have never been publicly revealed. So only UCLA and the regents know what that risk is. The regents will have to weigh that risk/financial liability as they see fit.  (They would also have to weigh the risk of other Pac 12 schools leaving if they force UCLA to stay.)  

Anyway, in my view, the regents have the absolute power to do whatever they want here.  Whether it would be a good idea or bad idea for them to force UCLA to stay, they have that power.  But they may not have to make any real decision at all depending on how things play out in the next month.

[OCcardinal]

People often talk about the Board of Regents and individual UCs as if they are separate entities.  They aren't.  The UCs collectively have one governing body, the board of regents, which governs all of the UCs.  That board appoints a single President for the UCs collectively.  The Chancellor for each University campus is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Board, on recommendation of and in consultation with the single UC President.  

Saying the regents can't overrule UCLA's athletic department is like saying a corporate BOD can't overrule a decision made by middle management.  Under most corporate structures, boards and company presidents delegate authority down through the management chain for individuals to enter into contracts without preapproval of senior management or the BOD.  (You can't function otherwise.)  And that's the case here. Usually that delegation threshold is based on dollar value, but in this case the regents had delegated the authority of individual UC campuses to enter into certain athletics-related contracts without pre-approval by the UC President or the regents themselves.  It seems that the regents didn't contemplate that that delegation would include entering into a conference realignment agreement that would leave a fellow UC campus in the dust.  The impact of UCLA's decision on Cal is absolutely something that the regents should consider (just like the BOD of a conglomerate would be concerned of how the actions of various subsidiaries impact each other).

The Board of Regents attorney confirmed some time ago that within the Board's power to delegate authority to enter into contracts, is also the power to revoke that delegation at any time, either prospectively or retroactively.  So it is 100% up to the regents to decide what they want to do.  Per a recent NYT article, it seems they have been hoping this would work itself out (e.g., Cal getting invited to the Big 10 too or UCLA just deciding to stay due to alumni pressure, which exists to some degree).  They are quite concerned about the impact of the additional travel requirements on students, but if the Big 10 picked off more West Coast schools that concern would be lessened.

I've seen some commentators assert that the UC system would would have to pay a $$$ financial penalty to the Big 10 if UCLA were to stay in the Pac 12. But, to my knowledge, the terms of that contract, including whether there is any specified termination fee, have never been publicly revealed. So only UCLA and the regents know what that risk is. The regents will have to weigh that risk/financial liability as they see fit.  (They would also have to weigh the risk of other Pac 12 schools leaving if they force UCLA to stay.)  

Anyway, in my view, the regents have the absolute power to do whatever they want here.  Whether it would be a good idea or bad idea for them to force UCLA to stay, they have that power.  But they may not have to make any real decision at all depending on how things play out in the next month.