[ADPinWDC]

SI says about $13M downtick per year PER SCHOOL in Pac10, without USC and UCLA
https://www.si.com/college/2022/08/18/pa...ucla-exits

[ADPinWDC]

SI says about $13M downtick per year PER SCHOOL in Pac10, without USC and UCLA
https://www.si.com/college/2022/08/18/pa...ucla-exits

[JJJ]

Here's the LA Times story from 2 days ago if anyone is interested.

Concerned about the Bruins’ hasty exit from the Pac-12, the University of California system leadership on Wednesday proposed new rules that could limit campuses from making major decisions involving athletics contracts on their own.

Far more concerning for UCLA, two UC regents and the general counsel of the UC system suggested there might be an avenue to block the Bruins’ move that had widely been considered a fait accompli since it was announced in late June.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/202...-uc-impact

[JJJ]

Here's the LA Times story from 2 days ago if anyone is interested.

Concerned about the Bruins’ hasty exit from the Pac-12, the University of California system leadership on Wednesday proposed new rules that could limit campuses from making major decisions involving athletics contracts on their own.

Far more concerning for UCLA, two UC regents and the general counsel of the UC system suggested there might be an avenue to block the Bruins’ move that had widely been considered a fait accompli since it was announced in late June.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/202...-uc-impact

[OutsiderFan]

It doesn't sound like UCLA to Big Ten is a done deal. 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sports...EHIND.html

Also saw some chatter about how there is a big backlash to the move brewing in UCLA quarters as well.  

At the same time, the Big Ten Commissioner said they see them having 20 members and will be paying players. It seems obvious the paying players horse is being let out of the barn even faster than I anticipated. Yet another reason big time college football is leaving the NCAA. It will not be possible to compete for players unless paying them.

And of course, there must some sort of cap on compensation, but the only way to do that is with collective bargaining, which requires unionization. And then, if you have that, you have a draft, so the concept of recruiting can't exist.

Conceivably, the NCAA could be where you go to play football if you want to chose the school from which you want an education. And the NIL professional minor league would be for players who have no interest in school. If their football careers wash out, they can attend college like everyone else does.  Get the grades and pay the money.

I would agree I don't see Stanford creating a licensed pro team to compete at the highest levels of NIL football. But if the NCAA retains its chose the school you want to-lay for and get your education at, Stanford would probably dominate it.

[OutsiderFan]

It doesn't sound like UCLA to Big Ten is a done deal. 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sports...EHIND.html

Also saw some chatter about how there is a big backlash to the move brewing in UCLA quarters as well.  

At the same time, the Big Ten Commissioner said they see them having 20 members and will be paying players. It seems obvious the paying players horse is being let out of the barn even faster than I anticipated. Yet another reason big time college football is leaving the NCAA. It will not be possible to compete for players unless paying them.

And of course, there must some sort of cap on compensation, but the only way to do that is with collective bargaining, which requires unionization. And then, if you have that, you have a draft, so the concept of recruiting can't exist.

Conceivably, the NCAA could be where you go to play football if you want to chose the school from which you want an education. And the NIL professional minor league would be for players who have no interest in school. If their football careers wash out, they can attend college like everyone else does.  Get the grades and pay the money.

I would agree I don't see Stanford creating a licensed pro team to compete at the highest levels of NIL football. But if the NCAA retains its chose the school you want to-lay for and get your education at, Stanford would probably dominate it.

[BostonCard]

I am against pretty much all of that.  However, one thing I didn’t get is why you necessarily have to have a draft.  Leagues implement drafts to try to get competitive balance, but there is nothing intrinsic about professional sports that requires a draft. European soccer leagues, for example, don’t draft players.

BC

[BostonCard]

I am against pretty much all of that.  However, one thing I didn’t get is why you necessarily have to have a draft.  Leagues implement drafts to try to get competitive balance, but there is nothing intrinsic about professional sports that requires a draft. European soccer leagues, for example, don’t draft players.

BC

[rudruff]

This backlash dies out when the B1G starts publicly discussing offering UCLA's spot to someone else.

[rudruff]

This backlash dies out when the B1G starts publicly discussing offering UCLA's spot to someone else.

[Goose]

This backlash dies out when the B1G starts publicly discussing offering UCLA's spot to someone else.

Well, would we take it? :-)

[Goose]

This backlash dies out when the B1G starts publicly discussing offering UCLA's spot to someone else.

Well, would we take it? :-)

[chrisk]

This backlash dies out when the B1G starts publicly discussing offering UCLA's spot to someone else.

I don't see much chance of the Big 10 backing off UCLA. They have a much stronger legal position than the
UC Regents.

[chrisk]

This backlash dies out when the B1G starts publicly discussing offering UCLA's spot to someone else.

I don't see much chance of the Big 10 backing off UCLA. They have a much stronger legal position than the
UC Regents.

[old spanish trail]

This backlash dies out when the B1G starts publicly discussing offering UCLA's spot to someone else.

I don't see much chance of the Big 10 backing off UCLA.  They have a much stronger legal position than the
UC Regents.

Have you read the provisions delegating authority to the school?

[old spanish trail]

This backlash dies out when the B1G starts publicly discussing offering UCLA's spot to someone else.

I don't see much chance of the Big 10 backing off UCLA.  They have a much stronger legal position than the
UC Regents.

Have you read the provisions delegating authority to the school?

[rudruff]

I think the B1G would prefer UCLA, but they also don't want people forcing their way into the decision process. Replacing UCLA with another school still gives the B1G access to the LA market. How many calls are they going to have to make to find USC a partner? I would be stunned if it was 3.

[rudruff]

I think the B1G would prefer UCLA, but they also don't want people forcing their way into the decision process. Replacing UCLA with another school still gives the B1G access to the LA market. How many calls are they going to have to make to find USC a partner? I would be stunned if it was 3.

[OutsiderFan]

I am against pretty much all of that.  However, one thing I didn’t get is why you necessarily have to have a draft.  Leagues implement drafts to try to get competitive balance, but there is nothing intrinsic about professional sports that requires a draft. European soccer leagues, for example, don’t draft players.

BC

Yes, but they also implement drafts as a way to control salaries. If you don't have a draft, players can be paid, and NIL is still a thing, then the programs competing for talent will have no constraints on what can be spent and you'll have financial Armageddon.

The players will think they want to get paid, and that's fine, but there are always trade-offs. No way are schools going to pay players without a labor contract that allows them to cut underperforming ones, and without some controls over compensation. And competitive balance will be needed to keep people tuned in to the NIL League, which a draft does (at least in theory). You can't just have a handful of teams dominating and expect to have a lot of national interest when uncertainly of outcome is the primary driver of sports consumption for the avg. fan. Just figuring out how much the programs get and how much they have to pay their licensing school, and then the percentage to the players is very difficult. Even when that is figured out, will there be salary caps? How will programs decide how much to pay individual players? Just figuring out these things is a nightmare unto itself. It will take a long and arduous negotiation process to hammer out all those issues, then there are things like practice time, medical benefits for injured players, etc. Do some kids take scholarships to their NIL school? Is this factored into compensation amounts? Say goodbye to the transfer portal. That certainly won't exist anymore. Can players be traded from one team to another?  

None of this is going to be easy as the money Big Media is now paying makes it seem like it is going to be. There are dozens of agents and lawyers looking at that $7B Big Ten contract like vultures, and are scheming ways to get at it, I have no doubt. I don't honestly know if the whole thing won't collapse on the weight of its own hubris to be honest. I've always been an advocate of paying players, but within an NCAA model that didn't factor in NIL collectives and forming a College Football NIL pro league apart from NCAA. It's all a pretty big turn off to me.

[OutsiderFan]

I am against pretty much all of that.  However, one thing I didn’t get is why you necessarily have to have a draft.  Leagues implement drafts to try to get competitive balance, but there is nothing intrinsic about professional sports that requires a draft. European soccer leagues, for example, don’t draft players.

BC

Yes, but they also implement drafts as a way to control salaries. If you don't have a draft, players can be paid, and NIL is still a thing, then the programs competing for talent will have no constraints on what can be spent and you'll have financial Armageddon.

The players will think they want to get paid, and that's fine, but there are always trade-offs. No way are schools going to pay players without a labor contract that allows them to cut underperforming ones, and without some controls over compensation. And competitive balance will be needed to keep people tuned in to the NIL League, which a draft does (at least in theory). You can't just have a handful of teams dominating and expect to have a lot of national interest when uncertainly of outcome is the primary driver of sports consumption for the avg. fan. Just figuring out how much the programs get and how much they have to pay their licensing school, and then the percentage to the players is very difficult. Even when that is figured out, will there be salary caps? How will programs decide how much to pay individual players? Just figuring out these things is a nightmare unto itself. It will take a long and arduous negotiation process to hammer out all those issues, then there are things like practice time, medical benefits for injured players, etc. Do some kids take scholarships to their NIL school? Is this factored into compensation amounts? Say goodbye to the transfer portal. That certainly won't exist anymore. Can players be traded from one team to another?  

None of this is going to be easy as the money Big Media is now paying makes it seem like it is going to be. There are dozens of agents and lawyers looking at that $7B Big Ten contract like vultures, and are scheming ways to get at it, I have no doubt. I don't honestly know if the whole thing won't collapse on the weight of its own hubris to be honest. I've always been an advocate of paying players, but within an NCAA model that didn't factor in NIL collectives and forming a College Football NIL pro league apart from NCAA. It's all a pretty big turn off to me.

[JJJ]

7 Years---$7 billion deal



https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ox-cbs-nbc

Didn't know where to put this, but since Andrew Brandt is a Stanford alum (he speaks in the video after a couple of minutes)... (is there a reason why no one mentions him around here? I happen to enjoy his Sunday Seven Newsletters)

https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/sp...contracts/

[JJJ]

7 Years---$7 billion deal



https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ox-cbs-nbc

Didn't know where to put this, but since Andrew Brandt is a Stanford alum (he speaks in the video after a couple of minutes)... (is there a reason why no one mentions him around here? I happen to enjoy his Sunday Seven Newsletters)

https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/sp...contracts/

[OutsiderFan]

Shouldn't Colorado and Arizona have left for the Big 12 by now if they were going to leave the Pac?

Assuming this does happen, that would leave 8 teams in the Pac, with the only ones having any real value being Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal.

At that point, the Big Ten taking them to kill the Pac would make the most strategic sense.  

Of course, I have no idea how Cal and Stanford feel about having football teams outside the NCAA, as seems inevitable.

Maybe Cal and Stanford drop football and stay wedded to the NCAA in all other sports? But then, how do they - and especially Cal - fund those other sports without football money? Coming to Jesus moment rapidly approaching for these two schools.

[OutsiderFan]

Shouldn't Colorado and Arizona have left for the Big 12 by now if they were going to leave the Pac?

Assuming this does happen, that would leave 8 teams in the Pac, with the only ones having any real value being Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal.

At that point, the Big Ten taking them to kill the Pac would make the most strategic sense.  

Of course, I have no idea how Cal and Stanford feel about having football teams outside the NCAA, as seems inevitable.

Maybe Cal and Stanford drop football and stay wedded to the NCAA in all other sports? But then, how do they - and especially Cal - fund those other sports without football money? Coming to Jesus moment rapidly approaching for these two schools.

[TooMuchTV]

Shouldn't Colorado and Arizona have left for the Big 12 by now if they were going to leave the Pac?

Assuming this does happen, that would leave 8 teams in the Pac, with the only ones having any real value being Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal.

At that point, the Big Ten taking them to kill the Pac would make the most strategic sense.  

Of course, I have no idea how Cal and Stanford feel about having football teams outside the NCAA, as seems inevitable.

Maybe Cal and Stanford drop football and stay wedded to the NCAA in all other sports? But then, how do they - and especially Cal - fund those other sports without football money? Coming to Jesus moment rapidly approaching for these two schools.

The Pac-1X may survive and be the best place for the remaining schools even if Stanford and Cal leave for the B1G, which I believe makes the most sense, as it would reunite the California schools and allow all B1G schools a yearly trip to California.

Without the California schools to object, the Pac expansion options grow, even to Big 12 schools.

If the B1G takes Oregon and Washington, then there would be a mass exodus, more than likely.

Some interesting tweets regarding the situation: college football fan on Twitter: "Information on Stanford and it's connection to California too. 1: Stanford's president has a long and prestigous career in academic research, high level academics, and more. 2: California's president was the president at Ohio State." / Twitter

[TooMuchTV]

Shouldn't Colorado and Arizona have left for the Big 12 by now if they were going to leave the Pac?

Assuming this does happen, that would leave 8 teams in the Pac, with the only ones having any real value being Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal.

At that point, the Big Ten taking them to kill the Pac would make the most strategic sense.  

Of course, I have no idea how Cal and Stanford feel about having football teams outside the NCAA, as seems inevitable.

Maybe Cal and Stanford drop football and stay wedded to the NCAA in all other sports? But then, how do they - and especially Cal - fund those other sports without football money? Coming to Jesus moment rapidly approaching for these two schools.

The Pac-1X may survive and be the best place for the remaining schools even if Stanford and Cal leave for the B1G, which I believe makes the most sense, as it would reunite the California schools and allow all B1G schools a yearly trip to California.

Without the California schools to object, the Pac expansion options grow, even to Big 12 schools.

If the B1G takes Oregon and Washington, then there would be a mass exodus, more than likely.

Some interesting tweets regarding the situation: college football fan on Twitter: "Information on Stanford and it's connection to California too. 1: Stanford's president has a long and prestigous career in academic research, high level academics, and more. 2: California's president was the president at Ohio State." / Twitter

[BostonCard]

The PAC-10 (without USC and UCLA) is a better conference than the Big-12 without Oklahoma and Texas, and with the addition (or dilution by) BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, and UCF. Only BYU really holds its own there.

The concern by the remaining Pac-10 teams is not the conference as it is currently constituted, but the concern that it is unstable and that teams might be ripe for the plucking.  A Pac-8 without Oregon and Washington would fall apart.

Nobody wants to be left without a chair when the music stops.

BC

[BostonCard]

The PAC-10 (without USC and UCLA) is a better conference than the Big-12 without Oklahoma and Texas, and with the addition (or dilution by) BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, and UCF. Only BYU really holds its own there.

The concern by the remaining Pac-10 teams is not the conference as it is currently constituted, but the concern that it is unstable and that teams might be ripe for the plucking.  A Pac-8 without Oregon and Washington would fall apart.

Nobody wants to be left without a chair when the music stops.

BC

[nvdacard]

Shouldn't Colorado and Arizona have left for the Big 12 by now if they were going to leave the Pac?

Assuming this does happen, that would leave 8 teams in the Pac, with the only ones having any real value being Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal.

At that point, the Big Ten taking them to kill the Pac would make the most strategic sense.  

Of course, I have no idea how Cal and Stanford feel about having football teams outside the NCAA, as seems inevitable.

Maybe Cal and Stanford drop football and stay wedded to the NCAA in all other sports? But then, how do they - and especially Cal - fund those other sports without football money? Coming to Jesus moment rapidly approaching for these two schools.

I think the Arizona writer (Scheer? he is not an unbiased source as demonstrated by his twitter spats with Canzano and Wilner) is saying that the Big 10 wants the Big 12 to make the next move and take Arizona.  This way when the Big 10 circles back for Oregon, they can be shielded from anti-trust lawsuits for crippling the Pac-12.  This is a stand off now. Oregon supposedly has some outside representative (likely Phil Knight) in Chicago meeting with Big 10 officials to talk about "compatibility".  Stanford is obviously a great fit for the Big 10.  However, are they going to limit their numbers so they can raid the ACC in a decade?  If there are only two super conferences, Stanford might not be in.  If there are three, then we will definitely be in one of them.  We are living in interesting times.

[nvdacard]

Shouldn't Colorado and Arizona have left for the Big 12 by now if they were going to leave the Pac?

Assuming this does happen, that would leave 8 teams in the Pac, with the only ones having any real value being Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal.

At that point, the Big Ten taking them to kill the Pac would make the most strategic sense.  

Of course, I have no idea how Cal and Stanford feel about having football teams outside the NCAA, as seems inevitable.

Maybe Cal and Stanford drop football and stay wedded to the NCAA in all other sports? But then, how do they - and especially Cal - fund those other sports without football money? Coming to Jesus moment rapidly approaching for these two schools.

I think the Arizona writer (Scheer? he is not an unbiased source as demonstrated by his twitter spats with Canzano and Wilner) is saying that the Big 10 wants the Big 12 to make the next move and take Arizona.  This way when the Big 10 circles back for Oregon, they can be shielded from anti-trust lawsuits for crippling the Pac-12.  This is a stand off now. Oregon supposedly has some outside representative (likely Phil Knight) in Chicago meeting with Big 10 officials to talk about "compatibility".  Stanford is obviously a great fit for the Big 10.  However, are they going to limit their numbers so they can raid the ACC in a decade?  If there are only two super conferences, Stanford might not be in.  If there are three, then we will definitely be in one of them.  We are living in interesting times.

[OutsiderFan]

Shouldn't Colorado and Arizona have left for the Big 12 by now if they were going to leave the Pac?

Assuming this does happen, that would leave 8 teams in the Pac, with the only ones having any real value being Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal.

At that point, the Big Ten taking them to kill the Pac would make the most strategic sense.  

Of course, I have no idea how Cal and Stanford feel about having football teams outside the NCAA, as seems inevitable.

Maybe Cal and Stanford drop football and stay wedded to the NCAA in all other sports? But then, how do they - and especially Cal - fund those other sports without football money? Coming to Jesus moment rapidly approaching for these two schools.

I think the Arizona writer (Scheer? he is not an unbiased source as demonstrated by his twitter spats with Canzano and Wilner) is saying that the Big 10 wants the Big 12 to make the next move and take Arizona.  This way when the Big 10 circles back for Oregon, they can be shielded from anti-trust lawsuits for crippling the Pac-12.  This is a stand off now. Oregon supposedly has some outside representative (likely Phil Knight) in Chicago meeting with Big 10 officials to talk about "compatibility".  Stanford is obviously a great fit for the Big 10.  However, are they going to limit their numbers so they can raid the ACC in a decade?  If there are only two super conferences, Stanford might not be in.  If there are three, then we will definitely be in one of them.  We are living in interesting times.

It's not a matter of how many conferences there are, because there will ultimately only be one pro college NIL league. The matter is how many schools will be in that league and which ones will they be?

[OutsiderFan]

Shouldn't Colorado and Arizona have left for the Big 12 by now if they were going to leave the Pac?

Assuming this does happen, that would leave 8 teams in the Pac, with the only ones having any real value being Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal.

At that point, the Big Ten taking them to kill the Pac would make the most strategic sense.  

Of course, I have no idea how Cal and Stanford feel about having football teams outside the NCAA, as seems inevitable.

Maybe Cal and Stanford drop football and stay wedded to the NCAA in all other sports? But then, how do they - and especially Cal - fund those other sports without football money? Coming to Jesus moment rapidly approaching for these two schools.

I think the Arizona writer (Scheer? he is not an unbiased source as demonstrated by his twitter spats with Canzano and Wilner) is saying that the Big 10 wants the Big 12 to make the next move and take Arizona.  This way when the Big 10 circles back for Oregon, they can be shielded from anti-trust lawsuits for crippling the Pac-12.  This is a stand off now. Oregon supposedly has some outside representative (likely Phil Knight) in Chicago meeting with Big 10 officials to talk about "compatibility".  Stanford is obviously a great fit for the Big 10.  However, are they going to limit their numbers so they can raid the ACC in a decade?  If there are only two super conferences, Stanford might not be in.  If there are three, then we will definitely be in one of them.  We are living in interesting times.

It's not a matter of how many conferences there are, because there will ultimately only be one pro college NIL league. The matter is how many schools will be in that league and which ones will they be?

[nvdacard]

Shouldn't Colorado and Arizona have left for the Big 12 by now if they were going to leave the Pac?

Assuming this does happen, that would leave 8 teams in the Pac, with the only ones having any real value being Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal.

At that point, the Big Ten taking them to kill the Pac would make the most strategic sense.  

Of course, I have no idea how Cal and Stanford feel about having football teams outside the NCAA, as seems inevitable.

Maybe Cal and Stanford drop football and stay wedded to the NCAA in all other sports? But then, how do they - and especially Cal - fund those other sports without football money? Coming to Jesus moment rapidly approaching for these two schools.

I think the Arizona writer (Scheer? he is not an unbiased source as demonstrated by his twitter spats with Canzano and Wilner) is saying that the Big 10 wants the Big 12 to make the next move and take Arizona.  This way when the Big 10 circles back for Oregon, they can be shielded from anti-trust lawsuits for crippling the Pac-12.  This is a stand off now. Oregon supposedly has some outside representative (likely Phil Knight) in Chicago meeting with Big 10 officials to talk about "compatibility".  Stanford is obviously a great fit for the Big 10.  However, are they going to limit their numbers so they can raid the ACC in a decade?  If there are only two super conferences, Stanford might not be in.  If there are three, then we will definitely be in one of them.  We are living in interesting times.

It's not a matter of how many conferences there are, because there will ultimately only be one pro college NIL league. The matter is how many schools will be in that league and which ones will they be?

I think there will be 60 teams.  Three power conferences.  Two of them will be the Big 10 and SEC.  They're the better divisions of the new college NIL league.  Then the third will be the Big 12.  

The Big 10 is going to add Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Washington and be done.  

The SEC will add FSU, Miami, UNC or GT, and Clemson.  

Big 12 adds Utah, Ariz, ASU, and Co in this round.  When the ACC is disbanded Big 12 takes Pitt, GT or UNC,  Virginia or VaTech, NC State or Duke.  

Eventually TV money starts getting paid out partially to the players.  

For us, the point is that Stanford is in if they choose to be.  Worst case is Big 10 doesn't take us.  Then it is off to the Big 12.  

Brett McMurphy Foresees Further Big Ten and Big 12 Expansion - BYU Cougars on Sports Illustrated: News, Analysis, and More

[nvdacard]

Shouldn't Colorado and Arizona have left for the Big 12 by now if they were going to leave the Pac?

Assuming this does happen, that would leave 8 teams in the Pac, with the only ones having any real value being Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal.

At that point, the Big Ten taking them to kill the Pac would make the most strategic sense.  

Of course, I have no idea how Cal and Stanford feel about having football teams outside the NCAA, as seems inevitable.

Maybe Cal and Stanford drop football and stay wedded to the NCAA in all other sports? But then, how do they - and especially Cal - fund those other sports without football money? Coming to Jesus moment rapidly approaching for these two schools.

I think the Arizona writer (Scheer? he is not an unbiased source as demonstrated by his twitter spats with Canzano and Wilner) is saying that the Big 10 wants the Big 12 to make the next move and take Arizona.  This way when the Big 10 circles back for Oregon, they can be shielded from anti-trust lawsuits for crippling the Pac-12.  This is a stand off now. Oregon supposedly has some outside representative (likely Phil Knight) in Chicago meeting with Big 10 officials to talk about "compatibility".  Stanford is obviously a great fit for the Big 10.  However, are they going to limit their numbers so they can raid the ACC in a decade?  If there are only two super conferences, Stanford might not be in.  If there are three, then we will definitely be in one of them.  We are living in interesting times.

It's not a matter of how many conferences there are, because there will ultimately only be one pro college NIL league. The matter is how many schools will be in that league and which ones will they be?

I think there will be 60 teams.  Three power conferences.  Two of them will be the Big 10 and SEC.  They're the better divisions of the new college NIL league.  Then the third will be the Big 12.  

The Big 10 is going to add Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Washington and be done.  

The SEC will add FSU, Miami, UNC or GT, and Clemson.  

Big 12 adds Utah, Ariz, ASU, and Co in this round.  When the ACC is disbanded Big 12 takes Pitt, GT or UNC,  Virginia or VaTech, NC State or Duke.  

Eventually TV money starts getting paid out partially to the players.  

For us, the point is that Stanford is in if they choose to be.  Worst case is Big 10 doesn't take us.  Then it is off to the Big 12.  

Brett McMurphy Foresees Further Big Ten and Big 12 Expansion - BYU Cougars on Sports Illustrated: News, Analysis, and More

[M T]

(It took a while to find the original thread)

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...g-ten-move

The University of California regents will decide Dec. 14 whether UCLA can depart the Pac-12 for the Big Ten.

The regents met Thursday in San Francisco and discussed whether to "affirm, overturn, or abstain" from action on UCLA's decision to become a Big Ten member in 2024, scheduling a new meeting to make their final decision.

[M T]

(It took a while to find the original thread)

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...g-ten-move

The University of California regents will decide Dec. 14 whether UCLA can depart the Pac-12 for the Big Ten.

The regents met Thursday in San Francisco and discussed whether to "affirm, overturn, or abstain" from action on UCLA's decision to become a Big Ten member in 2024, scheduling a new meeting to make their final decision.

[Softball Fan]

From ESPN article: In September, UC regents general counsel Charles Robinson said the board had the authority to block a move.

From what I read the policy in place at the time did not prevent USC/UCLA from leaving.  I think this may be theatre by the regents.  They will need a creative approach to challenge the move.

[Softball Fan]

From ESPN article: In September, UC regents general counsel Charles Robinson said the board had the authority to block a move.

From what I read the policy in place at the time did not prevent USC/UCLA from leaving.  I think this may be theatre by the regents.  They will need a creative approach to challenge the move.

[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.