you could be right, but the BTN might like to have the #12 market (UofW)
Suppose -- just suppose - the Regents say to the Big Ten, "You can only have UCLA if you can take Cal." What would the Big Ten do? Having Cal gives the Big Ten bigger carriage fees from the San Francisco/Oakland CMA, which is the sixth biggest in the country. Once the Big Ten takes Cal, does it take Stanford too to preserve a traditional rivalry, to ease scheduling and traveling, and to give Notre Dame a slight additional incentive to join? Stanford's revenue teams have sometimes been excellent -- think Jim Plunkett and Andrew Luck --and its non-revenue sports have long been outstanding; Stanford has regularly won the Sears Cup, or whatever it's now called. I guess we'll find out next week when the Regents meet.
Would USC take that? It cares a lot more about its rivalry with UCLA than it does with Stanford. Would Stanford take that? As a smaller school and as one that thinks of itself as elite, does it want its students (including its non-revenue sports, which are a considerable source of pride (that's why Stanford invests in them)) traveling at least two time zones east for every competition? Of course, for the Regents to make that offer, they'd have to be willing to accept the possibility that the UCLA athletic department would continue to run at a huge deficit if the Big Ten says no. I don't know what's going to happen. I just think the situation is less cut-and-dried than @Caliknight suggests.
You tell the regents to pound salt. If they would make these stipulations before either is a member of the B1G what will they do once they are members. 2 voting members at that.
I think it's the other way around -- that they have the maximum leverage now, before they've joined, and would have less later. Your girl friend has more leverage over you when you propose than once the two of you are married -- it's easier for her to walk away before the two of you are married. After all, once UCLA joins (something that would wound or kill the Pac-12) ) where could it go to instead?
They could say that but I think they are just as likely to take the 4 California schools.
UCLA Cal and the regents have zero leverage. UCLA is hitching their wagon to USC. UCLA needs a lifeline. B1G can go the next in line bypassing both UCLA and Cal. If UCLA is forced by the regents to forgo the B1G to save Cal. UCLA will be in a wounded pac with no chance of a similar B1G payday.
You're probably right -- UCLA has a huge deficit and USC might well join without UCLA. My best guess is that the Regents will let this go ahead, and require that UCLA pay some money to Cal. But we'll see.
Do you think USC would go alone if no one else would join them (which is unlikely, but possible)?
I think the B1G will quickly try to get a traveling partner whether that be Oregon or, IMO, Washington.
Not sure what’s funny. Do you know someone who sits on their board saying something else?
They would be, and USC/UCLA are as well. The Big Ten handles its library collection as one, and that benefit alone is going to be a major jump.
Stanford and Cal would be huge for the conference in terms of academics.
Stanford and Cal would be huge for the conference in terms of academics.
I don't think the B1G is looking to expand to the West, they got the two programs they wanted. Maybe if ND decided to join they would grab one, but the valuable properties left are in the South and the B1G can afford to wait it out until the ACC GOR runs out next decade. The B1G in it for the long term, they think in terms of decades, not years.
It only creates Title IX issues if you are on the margin with your number of female athletes. If you have many more female athletes than you need to satisfy Title IX then there is no problem.
Why is this? Do you think the number of women athletes at UCLA substantially exceeds the number of male athletes? (I wouldn't be amazed if it did, but I don't know.)
did a quick google and found this
