ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Kliavkoff appealing to UC Regents to stop UCLA

rutgersguy1

Hall of Famer
Dec 17, 2008
40,378
14,152
113
PAC 12 and GK trying to hang on to UCLA. Even if the UC regents blocked it, which I don't think they will, I don't see how they would get away from ensuing lawsuits preventing UCLA from doing what they feel is in their best interests. GK is just explicitly stating the reason for the B10 to add more PAC schools somewhere down the line. I don't trust GK's travel cost numbers anyhow though. Even if they stopped UCLA, B10 could go okay we'll take school x & y instead and does that help UCLA? I suppose it's just a desperate hail mary by GK.









 
Plenty other better options than UCLA. Esoeciallly since USC is coming
Not likely to be an issue. Seems like desperation by GK. IMO, the B10 will be coming for others in the future but if theoretically UCLA was stopped now then the B10 would probably come after other schools sooner and then how is that helping UCLA or Cal for that matter.

GK must have the tv numbers by now as the PAC has been in a negotiating window and is trying any way he can to see if he can boost them. It is what it is, don't know that there's anything he can do about it. There are no rabbits to pull out of a hat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BLewis1968
Not likely to be an issue. Seems like desperation by GK. IMO, the B10 will be coming for others in the future but if theoretically UCLA was stopped now then the B10 would probably come after other schools sooner and then how is that helping UCLA or Cal for that matter.

GK must have the tv numbers by now as the PAC has been in a negotiating window and is trying any way he can to see if he can boost them. It is what it is, don't know that there's anything he can do about it. There are no rabbits to pull out of a hat.

ageee. Doubt this stops anything.

just saying if it did, UCLA isn’t a big loss at all. Small fanbase and not much recent success.

With USC we’d have LA covered
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knightmoves
GK probably feels like he’s tied to a railroad track with the Schlong Express coming at him at 90 mph
 
It is not exactly the same because of the PAC12 schools have viable landing spots, but reading media stories and fan boards about PAC12 leadership and the 10 remaining schools gives me flashbacks to the slow death of the Big East.

The most analogous schools are Oregon State and Washington State, because they will be the most negatively affected by the death of the PAC12, but just like a UConn their weak fan base makes it hard to care too much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeantownKnight
It is not exactly the same because of the PAC12 schools have viable landing spots, but reading media stories and fan boards about PAC12 leadership and the 10 remaining schools gives me flashbacks to the slow death of the Big East.

The most analogous schools are Oregon State and Washington State, because they will be the most negatively affected by the death of the PAC12, but just like a UConn their weak fan base makes it hard to care too much.
I think Oregon State and WSU, even if the rest leave will still be part of the PAC12. I saw a video awhile back and it basically said all the rights and benefits would still be grandfathered into a "new PAC12" and I think that's probably right because that's basically what happened with the BE.

I think it's more likely a bunch of MWC schools come into the PAC12 to benefit from those grandfathered rights.

Obviously, the overall money won't be the same but other benefits like NCAA credits, bowl money etc..would still exist.
 
Very reminiscent of the ACC expansion. VaTech wasn't part of the expansion until Virginia politicians got involved. This is a last ditch effort from Cal politicians to get both of their state schools into the B1G. I can't imagine the politicians would have a problem with carbon emissions if both Cal and UCLA were invited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeantownKnight
Very reminiscent of the ACC expansion. VaTech wasn't part of the expansion until Virginia politicians got involved. This is a last ditch effort from Cal politicians to get both of their state schools into the B1G. I can't imagine the politicians would have a problem with carbon emissions if both Cal and UCLA were invited.
Yea but UVA's vote was needed in that expansion, so they could help VT. There is no key vote needed here that can help Cal. They just have to hope the B10 wants to add Cal down the line but they can't strong arm the B10 by withholding UCLA. There are other alternatives to UCLA if it came to that and then both schools would be hurt instead just one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jay_hq
Very reminiscent of the ACC expansion. VaTech wasn't part of the expansion until Virginia politicians got involved. This is a last ditch effort from Cal politicians to get both of their state schools into the B1G. I can't imagine the politicians would have a problem with carbon emissions if both Cal and UCLA were invited.

So that makes Big 10/Fox the new ACC/ESPN or SEC/ESPN?

Conference proactively expanding to get a better media deal and not caring about destroying another Power-5 conference by poaching their teams.
Difference would be the Big 10/Pac-12 seemed to generally be good partners.
 
Yea but UVA's vote was needed in that expansion, so they could help VT. There is no key vote needed here that can help Cal. They just have to hope the B10 wants to add Cal down the line but they can't strong arm the B10 by withholding UCLA. There are other alternatives to UCLA if it came to that and then both schools would be hurt instead just one.
This is politics we are talking about. Do you think the average politician in California knows anything about football much less the B1G? This is the PAC using Cal and their political allies to try to save the conference. And Cal using PAC and their allies to save themselves.
 
So that makes Big 10/Fox the new ACC/ESPN or SEC/ESPN?

Conference proactively expanding to get a better media deal and not caring about destroying another Power-5 conference by poaching their teams.
Difference would be the Big 10/Pac-12 seemed to generally be good partners.
ESPN fingerprints were all over the ACC expansion. I have not heard anyone say a thing about media partners laying out a game plan for any of the recent expansion. The more recent expansion (UT-OU and USC UCLA) were brought on by schools wanting to leave their conferences not outright poaching by conferences. The opposite of the ACC/ESPN expansion.
 
This is politics we are talking about. Do you think the average politician in California knows anything about football much less the B1G? This is the PAC using Cal and their political allies to try to save the conference. And Cal using PAC and their allies to save themselves.
No they don't but it's a lost cause and they just have to accept that fact. There is no saving the PAC12 in its current configuration.

Better tact IMO would be to see if you can get any marginal gains by scheduling as many departing schools OOC in all sports with the remaining schools. They would want it too, in order to reduce travel costs. You may get some beneficial terms even.

I'd also focus energy on the 4 corners schools and try to prevent them from departing in the case others like Oregon/Washington leave. See if there's a way that some combination of MWC and those remaining schools are as attractive as anything they may find in the "new B12"

Make the best of what reality is instead of wasting energy on pie in the sky moonshots.
 
No they don't but it's a lost cause and they just have to accept that fact. There is no saving the PAC12 in its current configuration.

Better tact IMO would be to see if you can get any marginal gains by scheduling as many departing schools OOC in all sports with the remaining schools. They would want it too, in order to reduce travel costs. You may get some beneficial terms even.

I'd also focus energy on the 4 corners schools and try to prevent them from departing in the case others like Oregon/Washington leave. See if there's a way that some combination of MWC and those remaining schools are as attractive as anything they may find in the "new B12"

Make the best of what reality is instead of wasting energy on pie in the sky moonshots.
You summed up politics in your last sentence.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: rutgersguy1
PAC-12 is a mess.

Oregon State, Cal, Washington State, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah will be demoted to the children’s table when this is all over.
 
PAC-12 is a mess.

Oregon State, Cal, Washington State, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah will be demoted to the children’s table when this is all over.
Money wise yes but it's also an opportunity for them to raise their profile on the landscape and make an expanded playoffs in general and maybe even regularly.

Look at how Utah and TCU have raised their profiles from decade or more ago. UCF and Cincy as well to a degree. So financially, yes it's not great but it's not all bad. There is opportunity.
 
I think Oregon State and WSU, even if the rest leave will still be part of the PAC12. I saw a video awhile back and it basically said all the rights and benefits would still be grandfathered into a "new PAC12" and I think that's probably right because that's basically what happened with the BE.

I think it's more likely a bunch of MWC schools come into the PAC12 to benefit from those grandfathered rights.

Obviously, the overall money won't be the same but other benefits like NCAA credits, bowl money etc..would still exist.
That will be a situation like the few remaining Big East teams getting all of the exit fees. It helps for a while, but when it runs out they are not at the big boy table.
 
No they don't but it's a lost cause and they just have to accept that fact. There is no saving the PAC12 in its current configuration.

Better tact IMO would be to see if you can get any marginal gains by scheduling as many departing schools OOC in all sports with the remaining schools. They would want it too, in order to reduce travel costs. You may get some beneficial terms even.

I'd also focus energy on the 4 corners schools and try to prevent them from departing in the case others like Oregon/Washington leave. See if there's a way that some combination of MWC and those remaining schools are as attractive as anything they may find in the "new B12"

Make the best of what reality is instead of wasting energy on pie in the sky moonshots.
Their problem is that no prospective TV partner wants to give them any significant deal without a commitment (GOR) from the schools, and several schools won’t sign one.
 
PAC-12 is a mess.

Oregon State, Cal, Washington State, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah will be demoted to the children’s table when this is all over.
The Arizona schools, Colorado, and Utah will invited to the B12 the day after they become available.
 
ESPN fingerprints were all over the ACC expansion. I have not heard anyone say a thing about media partners laying out a game plan for any of the recent expansion. The more recent expansion (UT-OU and USC UCLA) were brought on by schools wanting to leave their conferences not outright poaching by conferences. The opposite of the ACC/ESPN expansion.

The Big 10 is arguably (it's really inarguable but I'll be nice to the other conferences) the best run conference in college sports.
I personally would find it hard to believe they fell backwards into adding USC/UCLA coincidentally right in the middle of the new media deal negotiations.

How likely is it that were no talks from the Big 10 to Fox saying "that offer looks great. Oh by the way, just suppose we added we added Team X, Y, Z.........."
There had to be some advance conversations or else the Big 10 wouldn't have added USC/UCLA.

Back to my "Rutgers wasn't a risk" argument. I'm sure dozens have schools had said "Hey Big 10, I'm here if you want". But they aren't going to just add any schools. They are going to make sure it will make sense financially first (i.e. discuss with media partners).

It's not "Hey Fox - we are adding USC/UCLA. Can you run the numbers and let us know does this increase or decrease our deal? Oh no!! It would decrease? But we already accepted them."
No moves are made without assurances from media partners giving the go ahead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rutgersguy1
Their problem is that no prospective TV partner wants to give them any significant deal without a commitment (GOR) from the schools, and several schools won’t sign one.
That's part of the issue yea and why he should focus on the future and how to make the best of it, rather than what's happened. Assume a world without Oregon/Washington etc.. too and think of how best to go forward with that. If they get less money maybe give a smaller share for schools that don't sign a GOR.

You can't compete with the B10 but you may be able to hold the 4 corners off from the B12. You have to explore that though and see if there's some combo of schools that are as attractive. I think it's a waste of energy to focus much on the schools the B10 wants. Just squeeze them a little while they're in the PAC12 and keep the remaining committed members happy. It still might not be enough but that's the better use of time and energy than a hail mary.
 
I don't think the Big Ten wants USC by itself.
This is all just nonsense. The B1G could easily take Washington, Oregon, and Stanford if UCLA is blocked. Then the four corner schools bolt for the Big Twelve and UCLA can join them, join the Mountain West or play a round robin with Cal, WSU, and Oregon State each year. The best interest of UCLA is obviously the B1G.
 
The Big 10 is arguably (it's really inarguable but I'll be nice to the other conferences) the best run conference in college sports.
I personally would find it hard to believe they fell backwards into adding USC/UCLA coincidentally right in the middle of the new media deal negotiations.

How likely is it that were no talks from the Big 10 to Fox saying "that offer looks great. Oh by the way, just suppose we added we added Team X, Y, Z.........."
There had to be some advance conversations or else the Big 10 wouldn't have added USC/UCLA.

Back to my "Rutgers wasn't a risk" argument. I'm sure dozens have schools had said "Hey Big 10, I'm here if you want". But they aren't going to just add any schools. They are going to make sure it will make sense financially first (i.e. discuss with media partners).

It's not "Hey Fox - we are adding USC/UCLA. Can you run the numbers and let us know does this increase or decrease our deal? Oh no!! It would decrease? But we already accepted them."
No moves are made without assurances from media partners giving the go ahead.
I agree with you. Nothing is done in a vacuum. There are many "advisors" to media, conference and individual schools that are in conversation at all times. Conferences know how much each school will bring to the table ahead of time. The only difference with the more recent conference alignment has been the schools "initiated" change not the conference/media.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NickRU714
Hey if the Cal regents block the move, UCLA and Cal can always join the AAC when the PAC breaks up.
 


IMO that’s a gamble because it could be schools not including Cal and UCLA. Even if they came at a later date it might not be with as favorable a deal as UCLA has now.
 
This is all just nonsense. The B1G could easily take Washington, Oregon, and Stanford if UCLA is blocked. Then the four corner schools bolt for the Big Twelve and UCLA can join them, join the Mountain West or play a round robin with Cal, WSU, and Oregon State each year. The best interest of UCLA is obviously the B1G.
The Regents thing is nonsense but grabbing another team doesn't really help anyone until they add more schools. The reason why the Big Ten wants USC and UCLA is it will make travel costs for all other sports a lot cheaper when there is just the two of them out West. Hobbs mentioned this after the announcement.
 
I don't think the Big Ten wants USC by itself.
Doesn't matter. This whole thing is short-sighted by the Pac12. Say they keep UCLA. Then the B1G counters and takes Oregon, Washington, and Stanford as a countermove (along with USC) and decimates the Pac12. Both the Pac12 and UCLA are then screwed. Just a dumb thought process and nothing more than political theater. If they actually got their way, they would be in even worse shape than they are now by just letting UCLA go. Take your medicine and move on and be thankful it isnt worse (because it quickly could be)
 
Doesn't matter. This whole thing is short-sighted by the Pac12. Say they keep UCLA. Then the B1G counters and takes Oregon, Washington, and Stanford as a countermove (along with USC) and decimates the Pac12. Both the Pac12 and UCLA are then screwed. Just a dumb thought process and nothing more than political theater. If they actually got their way, they would be in even worse shape than they are now by just letting UCLA go. Take your medicine and move on and be thankful it isnt worse (because it quickly could be)
It does matter in the beginning when it's just the two schools. $$$
 
You honestly think the Big 10 would stop at USC if UCLA got held back? Don't see it.
Didn't say that. But I guarantee that USC would have never been approved by themselves. The Big will get someone else easily but it isn't an ideal situation any longer.
 
Lol Warren would literally grab Stanford, Oregon, and Washington and go full scorched earth on the Pac-12 if they deny UCLA the move to the B1G.
From what I read out there, Warren and maybe some others want to expand more now. Other admins want to stay in a holding pattern for now.

If UCLA were to get blocked, which I still don't think will happen, that could change the dynamics of movement and how quick said movement might happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigmatt718
Lol Warren would literally grab Stanford, Oregon, and Washington and go full scorched earth on the Pac-12 if they deny UCLA the move to the B1G.
Exactly. If nothing else, to show that they can and don't f' with us. Therefore, the game the Pac12 and UCLA are playing is a waste of time and short-sighted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigmatt718
ageee. Doubt this stops anything.

just saying if it did, UCLA isn’t a big loss at all. Small fanbase and not much recent success.

With USC we’d have LA covered
In basketball UCLA still is dominant.

Regardless, think B!G should finish the Pac12 and take Oregon, WA, Stanford / Cal- it's going to happen anyway.

MO
PS And stop wishing. hoping and praying for Domers....imo they will only come when the 4 horsemen return- and even then they'll have their set of conditions.
 
In basketball UCLA still is dominant.

Regardless, think B!G should finish the Pac12 and take Oregon, WA, Stanford / Cal- it's going to happen anyway.

MO
PS And stop wishing. hoping and praying for Domers....imo they will only come when the 4 horsemen return- and even then they'll have their set of conditions.
I agree the B1G should stop worrying about ND.

It appears ND wants to run out the clock and get the 10 years left of independence the ACC GOR and their hybrid membership gets them.

Howrver, if at the end of those 20 years we have two super conferences and a decent B12, ND almost has to come to the B1G.

The B12 would be too regional for them, and they would know they couldn’t possibly compete playing an SEC conference schedule.
 
ageee. Doubt this stops anything.

just saying if it did, UCLA isn’t a big loss at all. Small fanbase and not much recent success.

With USC we’d have LA covered
The UCLA fan base is not small. It can be huge. Recent down years, but once back into things they will draw well.

This is going nowhere. Regents can't do much to stop UCLA, though they could make a stink. If anything, it could backfire if Regents end up getting Cal invited in addition to UCLA. If that happens, Stanford follows and the PAC 12 just lost all of California. Unlikely to happen right now, but who knows.
 
ADVERTISEMENT