[Canalejas]

Given the choice (which we won't be) I'd rather stay with UCLA and Cal in a western conference than go with USC and ND into a midwestern one.  But that's just me.

[Canalejas]

Given the choice (which we won't be) I'd rather stay with UCLA and Cal in a western conference than go with USC and ND into a midwestern one.  But that's just me.

[chrisk]

Speculation on top of speculation:

https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/lists/w...a-big-ten/

The following are quotes from the article:

COULD STANFORD POSSIBLY REPLACE UCLA IN GOING TO THE BIG TEN?

Don’t bet on this happening, but the obvious point remains that since UCLA is under the UC system umbrella and Stanford is not, any potential complication from the UCLA side of things could create an explosive environment.

IF UCLA'S EXIT IS BLOCKED OR AT LEAST RESISTED/MADE TOUGHER, WHAT WOULD STANFORD DO?

However, Stanford probably values its women’s basketball program and its Olympic sports to the point that it would rather stay in the Pac-12. UCLA’s move being blocked would actually make Stanford more inclined to stay, not less, since the Pac-12 would regain a foothold in the Los Angeles market.

WHAT IF THE UC BOARD IS SUED FOR FAILING TO BLOCK UCLA'S EXIT?

Could this be the unexpected development which improbably leads to chaos within the UC system? If people (likely from Berkeley) with resources and legal knowledge see an opening, and a way to punish the UC system for allowing UCLA to leave, could that put the brakes on UCLA’s move to the Big Ten?


Once again those were quotes from the article; not my opinion.

Not sure why UCLA wouLd deserve extra scrutiny from the regents. There are 9 undergraduate UC campuses. They belong to various athletic conferences.
Whether 1 or 2 of the 9 belongs to the PACxx does not seem to be a matter of interest to the UC system.

[chrisk]

Speculation on top of speculation:

https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/lists/w...a-big-ten/

The following are quotes from the article:

COULD STANFORD POSSIBLY REPLACE UCLA IN GOING TO THE BIG TEN?

Don’t bet on this happening, but the obvious point remains that since UCLA is under the UC system umbrella and Stanford is not, any potential complication from the UCLA side of things could create an explosive environment.

IF UCLA'S EXIT IS BLOCKED OR AT LEAST RESISTED/MADE TOUGHER, WHAT WOULD STANFORD DO?

However, Stanford probably values its women’s basketball program and its Olympic sports to the point that it would rather stay in the Pac-12. UCLA’s move being blocked would actually make Stanford more inclined to stay, not less, since the Pac-12 would regain a foothold in the Los Angeles market.

WHAT IF THE UC BOARD IS SUED FOR FAILING TO BLOCK UCLA'S EXIT?

Could this be the unexpected development which improbably leads to chaos within the UC system? If people (likely from Berkeley) with resources and legal knowledge see an opening, and a way to punish the UC system for allowing UCLA to leave, could that put the brakes on UCLA’s move to the Big Ten?


Once again those were quotes from the article; not my opinion.

Not sure why UCLA wouLd deserve extra scrutiny from the regents. There are 9 undergraduate UC campuses. They belong to various athletic conferences.
Whether 1 or 2 of the 9 belongs to the PACxx does not seem to be a matter of interest to the UC system.

[Canalejas]

Those other UCs are either too new to have their sports in the NCAA (UC Merced,) happy to be non-scholarship in D3 (UC Santa Cruz,) or now all clustered together in a non-football D1 conference, the Big West (UCSD, UCR, UCI, UCSB, and UCD.)  

It doesn't seem like any of them are being kept from reaching whatever level they're comfortable with.  To the contrary, the other Big West UCs seem to have gone to bat for San Diego when their CSU conference-mates tried to block the Tritons from joining them.  

But the bears and bruins have long been above the rest. I always assumed that they not only wanted to be together as "co-flagships," but that the regents similarly wanted them to be twins.  I was genuinely surprised by all the earlier reports that the regents and the UCOP consider their role to be largely hands-off when it comes to sports.

[Canalejas]

Those other UCs are either too new to have their sports in the NCAA (UC Merced,) happy to be non-scholarship in D3 (UC Santa Cruz,) or now all clustered together in a non-football D1 conference, the Big West (UCSD, UCR, UCI, UCSB, and UCD.)  

It doesn't seem like any of them are being kept from reaching whatever level they're comfortable with.  To the contrary, the other Big West UCs seem to have gone to bat for San Diego when their CSU conference-mates tried to block the Tritons from joining them.  

But the bears and bruins have long been above the rest. I always assumed that they not only wanted to be together as "co-flagships," but that the regents similarly wanted them to be twins.  I was genuinely surprised by all the earlier reports that the regents and the UCOP consider their role to be largely hands-off when it comes to sports.

[Goose]

But the bears and bruins have long been above the rest. I always assumed that they not only wanted to be together as "co-flagships," but that the regents similarly wanted them to be twins.  I was genuinely surprised by all the earlier reports that the regents and the UCOP consider their role to be largely hands-off when it comes to sports.

I don't think the Regents care about what conference UCLA is in. They do care if what UCLA does negatively impacts Kal in such a way it may cost UC system money it wouldn't otherwise have to pay out. IMHO the Regents should have looked much harder at Kal's creation of so much debit that arguably they can't pay. They certainly can't pay it if they end up in a conference that has no significant TV revenue. Given the Kal situation, the Regents should have scrutinized what UCLA did that caused a 100M athletic debt. I suspect they did, but it looked like UCLA could pay it with PAC-12 level revenues, albeit not easily. They also were probably trapped by precedent. They let Kal do worse.

The Regents may now be in a situation where UCLA will easily pay their debt, but Kal, due to the possible implosion of the PAC-12-10... cannot. That I think is the rub.

[Goose]

But the bears and bruins have long been above the rest. I always assumed that they not only wanted to be together as "co-flagships," but that the regents similarly wanted them to be twins.  I was genuinely surprised by all the earlier reports that the regents and the UCOP consider their role to be largely hands-off when it comes to sports.

I don't think the Regents care about what conference UCLA is in. They do care if what UCLA does negatively impacts Kal in such a way it may cost UC system money it wouldn't otherwise have to pay out. IMHO the Regents should have looked much harder at Kal's creation of so much debit that arguably they can't pay. They certainly can't pay it if they end up in a conference that has no significant TV revenue. Given the Kal situation, the Regents should have scrutinized what UCLA did that caused a 100M athletic debt. I suspect they did, but it looked like UCLA could pay it with PAC-12 level revenues, albeit not easily. They also were probably trapped by precedent. They let Kal do worse.

The Regents may now be in a situation where UCLA will easily pay their debt, but Kal, due to the possible implosion of the PAC-12-10... cannot. That I think is the rub.

[Mick]

Those other UCs are either too new to have their sports in the NCAA (UC Merced,) happy to be non-scholarship in D3 (UC Santa Cruz,) or now all clustered together in a non-football D1 conference, the Big West (UCSD, UCR, UCI, UCSB, and UCD.)  

It doesn't seem like any of them are being kept from reaching whatever level they're comfortable with.  To the contrary, the other Big West UCs seem to have gone to bat for San Diego when their CSU conference-mates tried to block the Tritons from joining them.  

But the bears and bruins have long been above the rest. I always assumed that they not only wanted to be together as "co-flagships," but that the regents similarly wanted them to be twins.  I was genuinely surprised by all the earlier reports that the regents and the UCOP consider their role to be largely hands-off when it comes to sports.

Not that it's a precedent, but MVB recently split the very large MPSF into two conferences, the MPSF and the Big West.  The Big West has all of the D1 men's VB teams, including Irvine, Santa Barbara, San Diego, along with CSU Northridge and CSU Long Beach.  The MPSF kept UCLA, along with the traditional powers Pepperdine, USC, BYU, Stanford, and two newbies, Concordia and Grand Canyon.  So...precedent to separate UCLA from the rest of the UC's.

[Mick]

Those other UCs are either too new to have their sports in the NCAA (UC Merced,) happy to be non-scholarship in D3 (UC Santa Cruz,) or now all clustered together in a non-football D1 conference, the Big West (UCSD, UCR, UCI, UCSB, and UCD.)  

It doesn't seem like any of them are being kept from reaching whatever level they're comfortable with.  To the contrary, the other Big West UCs seem to have gone to bat for San Diego when their CSU conference-mates tried to block the Tritons from joining them.  

But the bears and bruins have long been above the rest. I always assumed that they not only wanted to be together as "co-flagships," but that the regents similarly wanted them to be twins.  I was genuinely surprised by all the earlier reports that the regents and the UCOP consider their role to be largely hands-off when it comes to sports.

Not that it's a precedent, but MVB recently split the very large MPSF into two conferences, the MPSF and the Big West.  The Big West has all of the D1 men's VB teams, including Irvine, Santa Barbara, San Diego, along with CSU Northridge and CSU Long Beach.  The MPSF kept UCLA, along with the traditional powers Pepperdine, USC, BYU, Stanford, and two newbies, Concordia and Grand Canyon.  So...precedent to separate UCLA from the rest of the UC's.

[cardcrimson]

The MPSF kept UCLA, along with the traditional powers Pepperdine, USC, BYU, Stanford, and two newbies, Concordia and Grand Canyon.  

TCU and Baylor no, but Grand Canyon yes? Still puzzled by that post on the other thread. . . .

[cardcrimson]

The MPSF kept UCLA, along with the traditional powers Pepperdine, USC, BYU, Stanford, and two newbies, Concordia and Grand Canyon.  

TCU and Baylor no, but Grand Canyon yes? Still puzzled by that post on the other thread. . . .

[chrisk]

The Regents should be supportive of Cal in a strong Pac10. Choosing an athletic conference seems to be well within the limits of autonomy giving to individual campuses.

[chrisk]

The Regents should be supportive of Cal in a strong Pac10. Choosing an athletic conference seems to be well within the limits of autonomy giving to individual campuses.

[Softball Fan]

The Regents should be supportive of Cal in a strong Pac10.  Choosing an athletic conference seems to be well within the limits of autonomy giving to individual campuses.

I agree.  However with a world gone lawsuit crazy, legal action could come out from under a rock anywhere in California.  Cal owes a staggering debt on its stadium.  If the bond holders of Cal debt think UCLA's exit materially impacts Cal's credit worthiness to repay, will they bring legal action against UCLA or the UC system?  

Cal has at least 20 Olympic sports.  I believe they all lose money and depend on Cal football TV revenue to help finance the teams.  With a TV deal devoid of the LA market the reduced revenue might mean eliminating some Olympic sports and athletic scholarships.  Could this lead to a lawsuit against UCLA or the UC system?

If some Cal women's sports are eliminated due to lack of financing are there any Title IX considerations?

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.

[Softball Fan]

The Regents should be supportive of Cal in a strong Pac10.  Choosing an athletic conference seems to be well within the limits of autonomy giving to individual campuses.

I agree.  However with a world gone lawsuit crazy, legal action could come out from under a rock anywhere in California.  Cal owes a staggering debt on its stadium.  If the bond holders of Cal debt think UCLA's exit materially impacts Cal's credit worthiness to repay, will they bring legal action against UCLA or the UC system?  

Cal has at least 20 Olympic sports.  I believe they all lose money and depend on Cal football TV revenue to help finance the teams.  With a TV deal devoid of the LA market the reduced revenue might mean eliminating some Olympic sports and athletic scholarships.  Could this lead to a lawsuit against UCLA or the UC system?

If some Cal women's sports are eliminated due to lack of financing are there any Title IX considerations?

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.

[Goose]

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?

[Goose]

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?

[CTcard]

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.

[CTcard]

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.

[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?

[BostonCard]

The additional money UCLA is going to make from their deal in the Big-♾️ dwarves the money Cal loses from USC and UCLA’s departure, so a negotiated settlement to make Cal whole again is entirely possible.

Sadly, this has always been about the money.

BC

[BostonCard]

The additional money UCLA is going to make from their deal in the Big-♾️ dwarves the money Cal loses from USC and UCLA’s departure, so a negotiated settlement to make Cal whole again is entirely possible.

Sadly, this has always been about the money.

BC

[Canalejas]

Those other UCs are either too new to have their sports in the NCAA (UC Merced,) happy to be non-scholarship in D3 (UC Santa Cruz,) or now all clustered together in a non-football D1 conference, the Big West (UCSD, UCR, UCI, UCSB, and UCD.)  

It doesn't seem like any of them are being kept from reaching whatever level they're comfortable with.  To the contrary, the other Big West UCs seem to have gone to bat for San Diego when their CSU conference-mates tried to block the Tritons from joining them.  

But the bears and bruins have long been above the rest. I always assumed that they not only wanted to be together as "co-flagships," but that the regents similarly wanted them to be twins.  I was genuinely surprised by all the earlier reports that the regents and the UCOP consider their role to be largely hands-off when it comes to sports.

Not that it's a precedent, but MVB recently split the very large MPSF into two conferences, the MPSF and the Big West.  The Big West has all of the D1 men's VB teams, including Irvine, Santa Barbara, San Diego, along with CSU Northridge and CSU Long Beach.  The MPSF kept UCLA, along with the traditional powers Pepperdine, USC, BYU, Stanford, and two newbies, Concordia and Grand Canyon.  So...precedent to separate UCLA from the rest of the UC's.

It sounds like the Big West just did what every primary conference does whenever it has enough full members to bring a sport in-house, leave the MPSF. Maybe UCSD finally gave them enough teams to make the move?

---

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.

What an interesting tidbit, that the system president came from Ohio State.  We can spin an entire conspiracy theory from that.

[Canalejas]

Those other UCs are either too new to have their sports in the NCAA (UC Merced,) happy to be non-scholarship in D3 (UC Santa Cruz,) or now all clustered together in a non-football D1 conference, the Big West (UCSD, UCR, UCI, UCSB, and UCD.)  

It doesn't seem like any of them are being kept from reaching whatever level they're comfortable with.  To the contrary, the other Big West UCs seem to have gone to bat for San Diego when their CSU conference-mates tried to block the Tritons from joining them.  

But the bears and bruins have long been above the rest. I always assumed that they not only wanted to be together as "co-flagships," but that the regents similarly wanted them to be twins.  I was genuinely surprised by all the earlier reports that the regents and the UCOP consider their role to be largely hands-off when it comes to sports.

Not that it's a precedent, but MVB recently split the very large MPSF into two conferences, the MPSF and the Big West.  The Big West has all of the D1 men's VB teams, including Irvine, Santa Barbara, San Diego, along with CSU Northridge and CSU Long Beach.  The MPSF kept UCLA, along with the traditional powers Pepperdine, USC, BYU, Stanford, and two newbies, Concordia and Grand Canyon.  So...precedent to separate UCLA from the rest of the UC's.

It sounds like the Big West just did what every primary conference does whenever it has enough full members to bring a sport in-house, leave the MPSF. Maybe UCSD finally gave them enough teams to make the move?

---

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.

What an interesting tidbit, that the system president came from Ohio State.  We can spin an entire conspiracy theory from that.

[UltimateCard]

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.

What an interesting tidbit, that the system president came from Ohio State.  We can spin an entire conspiracy theory from that.

He’s also a Stanford alum. Does that add more to the intrigue?
https://www.ucop.edu/president/about/ind...nd%20staff.

[UltimateCard]

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.

What an interesting tidbit, that the system president came from Ohio State.  We can spin an entire conspiracy theory from that.

He’s also a Stanford alum. Does that add more to the intrigue?
https://www.ucop.edu/president/about/ind...nd%20staff.

[Goose]

The additional money UCLA is going to make from their deal in the Big-♾️ dwarves the money Cal loses from USC and UCLA’s departure, so a negotiated settlement to make Cal whole again is entirely possible.

Sadly, this has always been about the money.

BC

BC, are the money terms of the deal UCLA and U$C public? If you have a link, that would be great! Did both of them get full shares from day 1?

[Goose]

The additional money UCLA is going to make from their deal in the Big-♾️ dwarves the money Cal loses from USC and UCLA’s departure, so a negotiated settlement to make Cal whole again is entirely possible.

Sadly, this has always been about the money.

BC

BC, are the money terms of the deal UCLA and U$C public? If you have a link, that would be great! Did both of them get full shares from day 1?

[chrisk]

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.

What an interesting tidbit, that the system president came from Ohio State.  We can spin an entire conspiracy theory from that.

He’s also a Stanford alum. Does that add more to the intrigue?
https://www.ucop.edu/president/about/ind...20faculty%
20and%20staff.

Prior to his 6 years at OSU, he ran UC Irvine and the rest of his career and training post-Stanford bachelor’s degree was at UC.

---

The additional money UCLA is going to make from their deal in the Big-♾️ dwarves the money Cal loses from USC and UCLA’s departure, so a negotiated settlement to make Cal whole again is entirely possible.

Sadly, this has always been about the money.

BC

BC, are the money terms of the deal UCLA and U$C public? If you have a link, that would be great! Did both of them get full shares from day 1?

The TV deal is being negotiated now.

[chrisk]

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.

What an interesting tidbit, that the system president came from Ohio State.  We can spin an entire conspiracy theory from that.

He’s also a Stanford alum. Does that add more to the intrigue?
https://www.ucop.edu/president/about/ind...20faculty%
20and%20staff.

Prior to his 6 years at OSU, he ran UC Irvine and the rest of his career and training post-Stanford bachelor’s degree was at UC.

---

The additional money UCLA is going to make from their deal in the Big-♾️ dwarves the money Cal loses from USC and UCLA’s departure, so a negotiated settlement to make Cal whole again is entirely possible.

Sadly, this has always been about the money.

BC

BC, are the money terms of the deal UCLA and U$C public? If you have a link, that would be great! Did both of them get full shares from day 1?

The TV deal is being negotiated now.

[BigJohn043]

The additional money UCLA is going to make from their deal in the Big-♾️ dwarves the money Cal loses from USC and UCLA’s departure, so a negotiated settlement to make Cal whole again is entirely possible.

Sadly, this has always been about the money.

BC

One other idea, what if the Regents try to get UCLA to conditioned their joining on cal / Stanford joining?  The B1G presidents would probably be delighted by that.  From a media rights perspective it probably isn't quite as bad as most think.....

[BigJohn043]

The additional money UCLA is going to make from their deal in the Big-♾️ dwarves the money Cal loses from USC and UCLA’s departure, so a negotiated settlement to make Cal whole again is entirely possible.

Sadly, this has always been about the money.

BC

One other idea, what if the Regents try to get UCLA to conditioned their joining on cal / Stanford joining?  The B1G presidents would probably be delighted by that.  From a media rights perspective it probably isn't quite as bad as most think.....

[Mick]

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.

Slightly OT, but I was struck by the number of UC regents who didn't attend one of the UC schools.

Members and Advisors | Board of Regents (universityofcalifornia.edu)

[Mick]

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.

Slightly OT, but I was struck by the number of UC regents who didn't attend one of the UC schools.

Members and Advisors | Board of Regents (universityofcalifornia.edu)

[Maple Leaf]

Having family connections to the UC Administration the goal is to have sufficient non UC people to counter the inbreeding.

[Maple Leaf]

Having family connections to the UC Administration the goal is to have sufficient non UC people to counter the inbreeding.

[old spanish trail]

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.

What an interesting tidbit, that the system president came from Ohio State.  We can spin an entire conspiracy theory from that.

He’s also a Stanford alum. Does that add more to the intrigue?
https://www.ucop.edu/president/about/ind...nd%20staff.

I read somewhere that the current President of OSU is a former field hockey and lacrosse player at Stanford who last year reportedly chided Stanford Pres with email "You dropped my sport".

[old spanish trail]

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.

What an interesting tidbit, that the system president came from Ohio State.  We can spin an entire conspiracy theory from that.

He’s also a Stanford alum. Does that add more to the intrigue?
https://www.ucop.edu/president/about/ind...nd%20staff.

I read somewhere that the current President of OSU is a former field hockey and lacrosse player at Stanford who last year reportedly chided Stanford Pres with email "You dropped my sport".