UC Regents let UCLA move to Big Ten

[retired711]

The University of California Board of Regents decided not to made a decision this month about UCLA's decision to join the Big Ten. Instead, there will be a special meeting December 14.

A lot of people (including a surprising number of Cal fans) misunderstand the Regents' role. The Regents are the board of directors of the University of California. UCLA (literally, the University of California, Los Angeles) is just one division of the University. So the Regents have the power to make UCLA do anything the Regents want, including walking away. We'll see what the Regents decide My guess is that the Regents will go along, but make UCLA pay a boatload of money to Cal because of the loss Cal will suffer by not having UCLA in the same conference. You'll note from the article that Cal's chancellor, Carol Christ (a Douglass graduate, btw, from the days when Douglass had its own faculty) hates the consolidation of conferences. I wonder if that means that Cal wouldn't join the Big Ten even that should somehow be offered. https://www.yahoo.com/now/uc-regents-delay-final-decision-214016018.html

 

[mdk01]

Hello Stanford

 

[retired711]

Hello Stanford

Could be. Stanford is comparable in size and outlook to Northwestern. (USC has three times the undergraduate population.) But does the Big Ten want another Northwestern? The big advantage is that once the Big Ten has a team in an area, the Big Ten network can charge ten times as much to cable operators for the right to run the BTN's games, and the San Francisco Bay Area is the 7th largest TV market in the nation. And it must be said that Stanford has a better athletic tradition than Northwestern. (Old-timers like me remember Jim Plunkett.) But Stanford prides itself as the success of its Olympic sports: the school regularly wins the NACDA Director's Cup (what was long called the Sears Cup.) Does it want its players going at least two time zones each for almost all road games? And does Stanford want to break its long-time rivalry with Cal? Like everything else in the conference consolidation picture, we'll see. One thing's for sure -- no one knows what will happen.

 

[mdk01]

Don't forget Elway and Luck.

Thy would play the same time zone schedule as UCLA.

They could play Cal OOC.

 

[Knight Shift]

The University of California Board of Regents decided not to made a decision this month about UCLA's decision to join the Big Ten. Instead, there will be a special meeting December 14.

A lot of people (including a surprising number of Cal fans) misunderstand the Regents' role. The Regents are the board of directors of the University of California. UCLA (literally, the University of California. Los Angeles) is just one division of the University. So the Regents have the power to make UCLA do anything the Regents want, including walking away. We'll see what the Regents decide My guess is that the Regents will go along, but make UCLA pay a boatload of money to Cal because of the loss Cal will suffer by not having UCLA in the same conference. You'll note from the article that Cal's chancellor, Carol Christ (a Douglass graduate, btw, from the days when Douglass had its own faculty) hates the consolidation of conferences. I wonder if that means that Cal wouldn't join the Big Ten even that should somehow be offered. https://www.yahoo.com/now/uc-regents-delay-final-decision-214016018.html

Cal also is suffering because they had signed a $17.5 million stadium naming rights deal with FTX, which just went belly up. Things are tough all over.

 

[retired711]

Don't forget Elway and Luck.

Thy would play the same time zone schedule as UCLA.

They could play Cal OOC.

Yes, they could play Cal OOC, but it wouldn't be the same. UCLA would be making a $10 million annual investment in compensating for the travel -- maybe Stanford would do the same. All I'm suggesting is that Stanford isn't interchangeable with UCLA, and that the Big Ten might not much want Stanford, and Stanford might not want the Big Ten.

 

[retired711]

Cal also is suffering because they had signed a $17.5 million stadium naming rights deal with FTX, which just went belly up. Things are tough all over.

It's a ten-year deal, so it's $1.75 million a year. Not pocket change, but Cal is already subsidizing the athletic department to the tune of $20 million a year. The FTX thing is mainly an embarrassment, although Cal's revenue sports are already an embarrassment. BTW, the deal was not for stadium naming rights, but only for the name of the playing field.

 

[William J. Leggett]

I have a funny suspicion that the B1G would rather have USC & Stanford/Washington…

They don’t need both UCLA and USC to capture the LA media market.

Stanford - #6 Media Market (San Fran. - Bay)
Arizona State (not AAU) - #11 (Phoenix)
Washington - #12 (Seattle)
Oregon - #113 (Eugene)

This would be the $$ order of preference. I inserted ASU IF the AAU membership requirement was ignored.

 

[Knight Shift]

It's a ten-year deal, so it's $1.75 million a year. Not pocket change, but Cal is already subsidizing the athletic department to the tune of $20 million a year. The FTX thing is mainly an embarrassment, although Cal's revenue sports are already an embarrassment. BTW, the deal was not for stadium naming rights, but only for the name of the playing field.

Cal is very similar to Rutgers in that there is a vocal contingent of profs who are unhappy with the money spent on athletics. They spent an ungodly sum of money to fortify their stadium against earthquakes. $17.5 million over 10 years may seem like chump change, but they are short on cash.

Cal Bears mark their territory with unique field feature

Cal’s new football field at Memorial Stadium features some lines to acknowledge that the stadium straddles the Hayward Fault.

www.mercurynews.com

 

[Shelby65]

Blocking UCLA would be the proverbial ‘biting off your nose to spite your face’

Blocking UCLA would mean at least 35 million a year lost and given to a non-system school instead.

There’s no way UCLA isn’t joining. At worst UCLA will pay back some of the extra funding to Cal or the system

 

[retired711]

Cal is very similar to Rutgers in that there is a vocal contingent of profs who are unhappy with the money spent on athletics. They spent an ungodly sum of money to fortify their stadium against earthquakes. $17.5 million over 10 years may seem like chump change, but they are short on cash.

Cal Bears mark their territory with unique field feature

Cal’s new football field at Memorial Stadium features some lines to acknowledge that the stadium straddles the Hayward Fault.

www.mercurynews.com

Yes, Cal is very short on cash. The plan was to sell personal seat licenses to pay for the stadium renovation and the construction of a performance facility. The plan flopped. That's why Cal would love to get some money out of UCLA's move to the Big Ten.

 

[Caliknight]

It’s all stemming from Gavin Newsom. He’s very butthurt he didn’t know about it.

It will be UCLA. He just wants to make people sweat.

 

[ru66]

remember when gov Murphy said he wanted NJ to be just like California--believe it the same type of crap would happen here

 

[dconifer]

I have a funny suspicion that the B1G would rather have USC & Stanford/Washington…

They don’t need both UCLA and USC to capture the LA media market.

Stanford - #6 Media Market (San Fran. - Bay)
Arizona State (not AAU) - #11 (Phoenix)
Washington - #12 (Seattle)
Oregon - #113 (Eugene)

This would be the $$ order of preference. I inserted ASU IF the AAU membership requirement was ignored.

That's an interesting comment, thank you...

 

[retired711]

I have a funny suspicion that the B1G would rather have USC & Stanford/Washington…

They don’t need both UCLA and USC to capture the LA media market.

Stanford - #6 Media Market (San Fran. - Bay)
Arizona State (not AAU) - #11 (Phoenix)
Washington - #12 (Seattle)
Oregon - #113 (Eugene)

This would be the $$ order of preference. I inserted ASU IF the AAU membership requirement was ignored.

Washington would love to be in the Big Ten. As I indicated, Stanford might not be as enthusiastic. I can't see the Big Ten wanting Arizona State because of its lack of academic prestige or national appeal. (Nebraska, although not considered an academic powerhouse, certainly has the latter because of its winning tradition.) Oregon would also love to be in the Big Ten; it has the Portland media market, which isn't great, but is 81. My guess is that the Big Ten is going to end up with a bunch of west coast schools, although who knows when.

 

[NotInRHouse]

remember when gov Murphy said he wanted NJ to be just like California--believe it the same type of crap would happen here

You mean investment in our school so we're the most applied to in the entire world like UCLA?

Yeah going to say that's preferable to a governor who calls Notre Dame for advice on shuttering the basketball program

 

[William J. Leggett]

You mean investment in our school so we're the most applied to in the entire world like UCLA?

Yeah going to say that's preferable to a governor who calls Notre Dame for advice on shuttering the basketball program

And the same program that is chickenshit to play us today!! They damn well backed out of the game after knowing they are lucky as hell in the game last year because of a $hit inbounds play (by player).

 

[krup]

Washington would love to be in the Big Ten. As I indicated, Stanford might not be as enthusiastic. I can't see the Big Ten wanting Arizona State because of its lack of academic prestige or national appeal. (Nebraska, although not considered an academic powerhouse, certainly has the latter because of its winning tradition.) Oregon would also love to be in the Big Ten; it has the Portland media market, which isn't great, but is 81. My guess is that the Big Ten is going to end up with a bunch of west coast schools, although who knows when.

The problem for both Cal and Stanford are, while Big Ten membership presents a bunch of logistical issues, not getting in the Big Ten likely leaves them at some point with no conference home that offers other members anywhere close to their academic level.

 

[rutgersal]

Washington would love to be in the Big Ten. As I indicated, Stanford might not be as enthusiastic. I can't see the Big Ten wanting Arizona State because of its lack of academic prestige or national appeal. (Nebraska, although not considered an academic powerhouse, certainly has the latter because of its winning tradition.) Oregon would also love to be in the Big Ten; it has the Portland media market, which isn't great, but is 81. My guess is that the Big Ten is going to end up with a bunch of west coast schools, although who knows when.

I was just thinking, if not UCLA, Washington would be a perfect fit. Huge school and Well heeled alumni who work at AMZN, MSFT, and Costco. And a more recent tradition of success, though they’ve struggled somewhat. Would make for a nice trip once in a while.

 

[William J. Leggett]

The problem for both Cal and Stanford are, while Big Ten membership presents a bunch of logistical issues, not getting in the Big Ten likely leaves them at some point with no conference home that offers other members anywhere close to their academic level.

Some will got to the Big 12 and some with go to the MWC or even worse WAC.

 

[Local Shill]

It’s all stemming from Gavin Newsom. He’s very butthurt he didn’t know about it.

It will be UCLA. He just wants to make people sweat.

Mr MAGA trying to infuse his politics. Shocking.

 

[Eagleton96]

I like being connected to Washington.

 

[Caliknight]

Mr MAGA trying to infuse his politics. Shocking.

Not even political. It's a fact. Heard it from someone directly involved.

Calm down, it's ok.

 

[Caliknight]

Washington and Oregon have been lobbying HARD to get into the B1G.

The numbers don't work to add value and current Presidents are not interested in adding members who aren't adding value, of course.

 

[RUTGERS95]

talk of arizona and colorado needs to stop, they will NEVER see the BIG

 

[RUTGERS95]

The absolute worse thing that could happen to UCLA and the UC system is for UCLA to be forced into a not going to BIG. The regents have power but they can't just say no as the schools themselves can sue for things that are in each schools' best interest. The regents would need to prove in subsequent court proceedings, if it happens, that ALL the UC system is hurt and not just Cal. On top of that UCLA can show material gain by the move.

this is just political bluster but the delay is interesting in that it could be to give the behind scenes negotiations for additional membership more time (both sides) or rallying more votes or is the some other related UC votes or matters that could be impacted before this we don't know about.

 

[mdk01]

The absolute worse thing that could happen to UCLA and the UC system is for UCLA to be forced into a not going to BIG. The regents have power but they can't just say no as the schools themselves can sue for things that are in each schools' best interest. The regents would need to prove in subsequent court proceedings, if it happens, that ALL the UC system is hurt and not just Cal. On top of that UCLA can show material gain by the move.

this is just political bluster but the delay is interesting in that it could be to give the behind scenes negotiations for additional membership more time (both sides) or rallying more votes or is the some other related UC votes or matters that could be impacted before this we don't know about.

Would the Big 10 want to get in the middle of litigation, even though they would probably not be a party, when Stanford and Washington are available?

 

[RUTGERS95]

Would the Big 10 want to get in the middle of litigation, even though they would probably not be a party, when Stanford and Washington are available?

Not sure they'd have to other then depo like stuff. This would be a cali thing

 

[mdk01]

Not sure they'd have to other then depo like stuff. This would be a cali thing

Probably not more than that, but it could take a while. Is UCLA worth it when Stanford and Washington are available?

 

[retired711]

The problem for both Cal and Stanford are, while Big Ten membership presents a bunch of logistical issues, not getting in the Big Ten likely leaves them at some point with no conference home that offers other members anywhere close to their academic level.

Yes. The logistical problems are solvable if there are other west coast schools in the Big Ten -- the more, the better because that decreases travel costs and disruption of student schedules. But you're right that the Pac-12 probably doesn't have a long-term future. The question for both Cal and Stanford will be whether they want to continue to try to do big-time athletics. Both schools really want to support their non-revenue sports, especially their women's sports -- I wonder if they can do that without trying to have strong programs in football and men's basketball. Both schools would love an Ivy alternative -- but there isn't one, as I never tire of pointing out on the Cal board.

 

[retired711]

The absolute worse thing that could happen to UCLA and the UC system is for UCLA to be forced into a not going to BIG. The regents have power but they can't just say no as the schools themselves can sue for things that are in each schools' best interest. The regents would need to prove in subsequent court proceedings, if it happens, that ALL the UC system is hurt and not just Cal. On top of that UCLA can show material gain by the move.

this is just political bluster but the delay is interesting in that it could be to give the behind scenes negotiations for additional membership more time (both sides) or rallying more votes or is the some other related UC votes or The matters that could be impacted before this we don't know about.

UCLA cannot sue the Regents because UCLA is a creature of the Regents, which is their governing authority. It would be like a division of Pepsico trying to sue the Pepsico board, or like the Camden campus trying to sue the Rutgers Board of Governors. I agree that it makes no sense for the Regents to veto the move, and all that this about is trying to get the best possible deal from the Big Ten and the best possible deal for Cal.

 

[retired711]

Probably not more than that, but it could take a while. Is UCLA worth it when Stanford and Washington are available?

Yes, UCLA is worth it. Oregon and Washington begged the Big Ten to take them, but the Big Ten opted for the L.A. area schools instead.

 

[retired711]

Cal is very similar to Rutgers in that there is a vocal contingent of profs who are unhappy with the money spent on athletics. They spent an ungodly sum of money to fortify their stadium against earthquakes. $17.5 million over 10 years may seem like chump change, but they are short on cash.

Cal Bears mark their territory with unique field feature

Cal’s new football field at Memorial Stadium features some lines to acknowledge that the stadium straddles the Hayward Fault.

www.mercurynews.com

I've written too much in this thread, but I should mention that, now that FTX has pulled out, there is nothing stopping Cal from selling naming rights to someone else. They might not get $17.5 million over ten years, but they'll probably do well given the proximity of the Silicon Valley.

 

[MADHAT1]

The PAC is dying with or without UCLA in it.
The Cal Regents won't be cutting off their nose to spite face, but act like they would if they could in order to save face.
Also the politicians in state will outwardly oppose the move , but be realistic enough to let it happen
That goes for both parties and the so called independent ones with a few exceptions that put their image ahead of what's best for everyone.

 

[Ridge 22]

If they are dumb enough to pursue this, the situation would go down something like this.....

Regents: UCLA, you can't go to the B1G, because that will hurt Cal.
B1G: Next up!!!!
Regents: Oh no, now we are all screwed.....wait, can we still talk?

 

[oldtimer67]

Comments are all around this subject, but no one has mentioned the biggest reason the Regents cannot afford to keep UCLA out of the Big Ten.

The Big Ten has already announced that they will be expanding to 18 or 20. One of these additions is almost certain to be Cal. The Regents keeping UCLA out if the conference is also a death knell for Cal. The B10 will be happy (not as much) with Stanford, Washington and Oregon. The only hope for the survival of the UCLA and Cal football programs long term is Big Ten membership. Unless, of course, the Regents want to pony up $200 million per year to make up for the short fall. There is no way that is going to happen.

The Regents have an easy out on this one. They have already agreed that, at the time UCLA agreed to join, the UCLA chancellor had been designated the authority to do so. They either have already done so, or are in the process of, removing that authority from other chancellors.

So, do they destroy UCLA football and probably Cal football with a stupid decision or do they accept what has already been done? If they force UCLA out of the B10, I wonder how many days before Chip Kelly resigns. BTW the Big Ten will also have grounds to sue UCLA, and thus the Regents, for failing to fulfill a contract that they willfully and legally entered.

 

[bigmatt718]

remember when gov Murphy said he wanted NJ to be just like California--believe it the same type of crap would happen here

Only difference is that we didn't have Rowan and TCNJ higher ups bitching when we were set to join the B1G.

 

[bigmatt718]

Washington would love to be in the Big Ten. As I indicated, Stanford might not be as enthusiastic. I can't see the Big Ten wanting Arizona State because of its lack of academic prestige or national appeal. (Nebraska, although not considered an academic powerhouse, certainly has the latter because of its winning tradition.) Oregon would also love to be in the Big Ten; it has the Portland media market, which isn't great, but is 81. My guess is that the Big Ten is going to end up with a bunch of west coast schools, although who knows when.

I think by 2030 the B1G is the B2G with 20 schools...Cal/Stanford/Oregon and Washington...and preparing to carve up the ACC like a Thanksgiving turkey with the SEC once their GOR expires. SEC adds names, B1G strategically adds markets and areas with large B1G alumni populations. So Cal/Stanford for the Bay Area, Oregon/Washington to lock up the Pacific Northwest make a ton of sense, even Arizona and Colorado for possibly the wave after to lock up Phoenix and Denver when the time comes to steal UVA and UNC away from the ACC.

 

[retired711]

I think by 2030 the B1G is the B2G with 20 schools...Cal/Stanford/Oregon and Washington...and preparing to carve up the ACC like a Thanksgiving turkey with the SEC once their GOR expires. SEC adds names, B1G strategically adds markets and areas with large B1G alumni populations. So Cal/Stanford for the Bay Area, Oregon/Washington to lock up the Pacific Northwest make a ton of sense, even Arizona and Colorado for possibly the wave after to lock up Phoenix and Denver when the time comes to steal UVA and UNC away from the ACC.

Your and @oldtimer67 both make a lot of sense. The only question in my mind is this: do Cal and Stanford want to continue to be involved in big time sports? My guess is that in they will so long as Washington and Oregon also join so that many road games will be in the same time zone. I think part of what is going on is an effort by the Regents to get Cal in the Big Ten as the price for letting UCLA go to the Big Ten.

BTW, note the final paragraphs of the Yahoo article I linked above. UCLA athletes strongly want to stay rivals with USC but don't care that much about the rivalry with Cal. In addition, many more prefer the Big Ten to staying in the Pac-whatever. This undercuts the claim that the move to the Big Ten is against the wishes of UCLA athletes.

 

[kupuna133]

Comments are all around this subject, but no one has mentioned the biggest reason the Regents cannot afford to keep UCLA out of the Big Ten.

The Big Ten has already announced that they will be expanding to 18 or 20. One of these additions is almost certain to be Cal. The Regents keeping UCLA out if the conference is also a death knell for Cal. The B10 will be happy (not as much) with Stanford, Washington and Oregon. The only hope for the survival of the UCLA and Cal football programs long term is Big Ten membership. Unless, of course, the Regents want to pony up $200 million per year to make up for the short fall. There is no way that is going to happen.

The Regents have an easy out on this one. They have already agreed that, at the time UCLA agreed to join, the UCLA chancellor had been designated the authority to do so. They either have already done so, or are in the process of, removing that authority from other chancellors.

So, do they destroy UCLA football and probably Cal football with a stupid decision or do they accept what has already been done? If they force UCLA out of the B10, I wonder how many days before Chip Kelly resigns. BTW the Big Ten will also have grounds to sue UCLA, and thus the Regents, for failing to fulfill a contract that they willfully and legally entered.

I have heard many variations of the expansion to 20 for B1G very few have Cal. They are not a shoe in. Washington Stanford and Washington Oregon are mentioned way more than Cal. The other 2 spots would be reserved for further eastern expansion.