Nov 16, 2022·edited Nov 16, 2022Liked by John Canzano
Let me see if I have this correct …..UCLA sneaks out the back door in the middle of the night without consulting anybody other than a few fellow disingenuous USC cohorts, then, after the fact, they send out a press release saying what a wonderful thing this is for their student athletes and that it has nothing to do with money…then they send out a bullsh*t survey asking said student athletes what they think? That is laughable, ridiculous and moronic.. What the hell is the kid supposed to say?…and I wonder how many recipients were asked to hit the transfer portal after criticizing them? The arrogance of these people never ceases to amaze me. Hey UCLA…. Next time you switch conferences….try sending your survey out BEFORE you bolt…
USC & UCLA did not talk prior to their deal according to both schools. They are not sneaking out as you say, as they have given two years notice of their plans. Both schools were candid about the improved revenue streams in their announcements. Both stated the improved TV exposure would help their athletes in NIL deals due to larger audiences. Your characterizations are not supported by the facts.
So one third of a small sample of UCLA athletes favor this. The other two thirds are neutral or worse. UCLA won't cooperate with a journalist asking questions of the public university. The local press won't write anything critical, or publish the highly revealing open letter Bill Walton sent to you after your inquiry of him. No one other than the Pac 12 commissioner is even mentioning alumni opposition.
The deal was hatched in secrecy by administrators who won't open this up for public inspection. Heck of a way to reward your fans, UCLA. No wonder home games have abysmal attendance this season.
Bill Walton' UCLA s letter was published in full in both Times owned papers. He is an idiot who does not have to balance the UCLA budget. Stick to B-Ball Bill. "UCLA's fans" is a stretch when looking at the attendance at the Rose Bowl. They hardly have any fans.
You say the letter was published in full in the LA Times and the San Diego Union? Would you kindly show evidence? A Google search turns up its appearance in nearly every large West Coast newspaper and news org except for those two.
My UCLA alum friends who work at the Times (and detest the bolt to Big 10) say it never ran and won’t because of the bias there.
Perhaps you believe Walton is a buffoon who shouldn’t have credibility. Thing is, he wasn’t just expressing his opinion. He was quoting others who are opposed, something the Times isn’t doing.
The UCLA folks mismanaged a department to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in debt. Most of your readers could have done better. The USC athletic department mismanaged one of the top brands in football for a solid decade. All of your readers could have done better with head coach hires than Haden/Swann.
Crazy that these two clowns get the bailout because they are located in a large city.
And absolutely true that the bailout involved selling out their fans and students.
UCLA operated at a deficit of $19M in 2019... -$21.7M in 2020... I liked what Bill Walton said about not having to look to the midwest for the solution.
I've been saying this for months. Hundreds of athletes not playing basketball or football have just been turned into online students at UCLA and USC. I've taught at Oklahoma, Colorado, and now at Oregon for 10 years. Olympic sports athletes know they're not going to play professionally. Their payment, is their education. You can't get the same education while flying to Maryland, New Jersey, Minnesota and Michigan every other week for 5 hours each way. You miss wayyyyy too many classes. You become an online student. Why go to UCLA to be an online student when you can be in class at Cal? Or Stanford? Or UW? You wouldn't. Football and basketball already travel a ton or its only 6 road games. This could, and likely will hurt recruiting for all of the other sports. At least with all the students who care about the education they're getting. In my experience, at 3 major universities, athletes want to be in class a lot more than the cliche's would suggest, especially the softball, volleyball, and soccer players, the track and field athletes, and the rest. It was arrogant and stupid to think they don't want to be in class. I said this backlash was coming. It is. Online degree from UCLA or an in person degree from Cal? Most swimmers and tennis players will see you at Cal.
I think it's going to be very interesting to see what happens in the sunny, outdoor sports. I covered the Big Ten. You don't need to play Purdue in baseball to get to Omaha.
I see other Pac-12 and California Universities using this as a recruiting tool against UCLA & USC. The Olympic sports may have an impact that will diminish both UCLA's & USC's competitive edge.
Nov 16, 2022·edited Nov 16, 2022Liked by John Canzano
Quoting from your post John, " Among those who responded, 77 percent included “increased travel times” among their concerns. Another 66 percent noted “missed class times.”
This from Sam Connon who writes on Fan Nation: (Just now editing to say this information along with more details was in a link you provided in your post)
"To mitigate the travel impact alone, the school would spend an additional $4.62 million to $5.69 million annually to increase the number of charter flights and decrease the number of days away from campus. To enhance nutrition for all student athletes, the school would spend an additional $2.927 million annually.
Addressing the concerns around academic support and mental health services would cost just shy of $1.6 million a year, according to the report, bringing the total annual cost to between $9.15 and $10.32 million."
NOTE: these estimates come from UCLA so you could probably double them. In any case, this seems like a lot of money to spend on a few hundred athletes. Meanwhile, over 40,000 UC system graduate and academic workers are striking for better pay.
By the way, if you want to read about the kind of corruption that has permeated USC for decades, read "Bad City" by the Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter, Paul Pringle, for the Times. The history of USC is filled with racism, cheating, corruption in sports and other areas. Look where the whole phony athlete scandal originated. The book shows how they threw their weight around with Pasadena government and police, the Times and everyone else in the medical school scandal. So, is it any surprise they are leaving for the money, why no....many of us say, "do not let the door hit your backside." UCLA is different and always will be...
Not only did SC President Carol Folt lie to GK, along with B1G Commissioner Kevin Warren, she led the charge against the conference moving into the central time zone.
If SC was playing footsie with the B1G when Pac-12 expansion discussions were on the table IMO the Pac-12 should be suing the rear ends off of SC and UCLA.
The books focus was the "cover up" of a dean involved in drugs and sex. What organization would want their reputation hurt by going public with such a story? They wanted to keep it in house for obvious reasons. No one wants to air their dirty laundry. Their are privacy laws that protect the accused, so going public can result in huge court ordered damages. A good reason to keep quiet until the issue is resolved which they did.
Yes coverup is a great word and it sure worked well for the Dr. Tyndall scandal also. Hey what is a billion or two for a coverup, right? The kind of scandals and discriminatory behavior that have plagued USC for 75 years are not what one expects from a top notch university in any way. At Cal, we may not win football games but our reputation and Nobel Prizes speak far louder than a national championship in football and I never have to make excuses for my alma mater, thank you very much.
Glenn, why the hate on USC? Were talking football here, not Tindall or Mike White your former football coach who was fired for telling his team to assault USC players back in the day. Note to you Glen; your Bears are not invited to the Big10 and the big bucks because they don't have the TV audience interest to justify their cost to the other schools. Both UCLA and USC do. Pretty simple.
Simple...there is a long history of bad behavior from USC. This is a school that had anti-Semitic quotas well into the 1970's, as well as racist admissions policies toward blacks and Asians. A school caught cheating in athletics I don't know how many times. A school where the whole phony athletic admissions scandal originated. And even if you ignore covering up sex scandals outside of athletics,, until just the last few years they were basically a 2nd rate academic institution acting like they were Stanford. I guess it is the same reason I detest Penn State for looking the other way when football became more important than scandals involving children...either academics is important or not, but football rules the USC roost too.
I'm old enough, having grown up in LaLa Land to remember it all and had family affected by those admission policies of old. Of course the old joke that the only thing all the Pac12 schools can agree on is that we detest USC is really correct and quite frankly I am looking forward to the school being gone. By the way that was not why Mike White was let go as it was about recruiting violations, something that would never happen at USC as that is a way of life in that program.
Hey dude, chill out. Your "hate" only hurts you. Are you a road rage guy as well I wonder. Over 40% of USC students are from overseas so apparently the "racists admissions policy" does not exist. Maybe your just upset that 70% of the time your Bears get beat in football. Our family has USC grads that have done very well. I don't hold it against Cal that Oppenheimer helped create the Atomic bomb that killed so many in Japan now do I. Peace brother.
Hate is such a strong word which was why I used the word detest, but a better description is that I have zero respect for USC as an institution of higher learning. Fight on DUDE!
Thanks for posting the survey. What has not been mentioned is that is USC leaves and UCLA stays then UCLA could reap a recruiting advantage in the LA market. Now I am not privy to whether parents in football and basketball attend their kid's games, but if I was sitting in a prospects living room and recruiting against USC I might suggest that to see your child play would you rather travel to Lincoln, New Jersey or any other frozen remote Big 10 site or head up to Seattle or the Bay Area?
In other sports such as crew I might ask whether a nice trip up to Sacramento by car is preferable to heading out to Indianapolis? If both these schools leave it really might advantage the other schools that parents can see their children by car most of the time versus flying across the country to these god forsaken Midwest sites with nothing to offer a visitor but corn, cheese and beer and ugly countryside.
more money will not change the fact that most games are played on TV at night when parents want to be home with their families. Larry Scott created this mess and it's too late to fix it.
If UCLA stays, do you think the Big 10 will simply target one more Pac 12 school to replace UCLA? There is a chance whomever is asked automatically accepts.
There is also a chance that staying is incredibly advantageous from a competitive point of view (i.e. football playoffs).
Yee gads, I hadn't thought about that. It would be the Ducks so that they get all that Nike money would be my hunch. Although getting UW means the Seattle market which is far greater than all of Oregon put together, but Nike money is big money.
My real worry is they will simply pick off another willing school, unless everyone is comfortable that the Pac 11 (with UCLA and the extra TV revenue it brings in) is well worth sticking around for.
The Pac-11 would become the Pac-12, and the advent of the enlarged CFP playoff would make the Pac have an easier path for any of them than the B1G would.
First, UCLA is not staying, so this is all just fun hypotheticals.
I think they'd go for Oregon. But, (1) Oregon has the same public school issues that UCLA has and (2) Oregon might be better off in the Pac. With UCLA, the money difference will be small, and the playoff potential is higher in the Pac.
They could go for Stanford, which would be great from the Pac-12's perspective. Stanford is doing almost nothing for the conference now.
If Oregon were offered, I'd rather they stay in the Pac-12. I think the upside is better and frankly, if UCLA were forced to stay, it would likely mean a bigger TV deal in general.
This is a good point I hadn't considered. UCLA would really own Los Angeles if they stayed. USC would be even more of an afterthought in that city than they already are.
USC is playing well now in football, but frankly they have been an afterthought in almost all sports since Carroll left USC. Further, if you look at their overall performance, in the last 30 years or so, outside of the Carroll era, they've been a mediocre sports program at best.
I wish them well as my view is they are entitled to leave if they want to, but I've always thought they were more of a legend in their own minds rather than on the field.
Yep. Almost silent. Plus... the Times has the Board of Regents fully sourced and wired by a terrific reporter who has covered California higher ed for decades. Why isn't the news side of the Times pushing her to work her sources in advance of this meeting. What's going on? What are the considerations, the pressure points? Instead, it's the worst kind of coverage: wait until the meeting to see what's decided, at which point the outcome is sprung on the public after the fact.
I worked at the Times for 21 years (news, not sports) before retiring. We never would have handled a story this way. I find it outrageous and I will now shut the heck up.
Bob...if you read the book I referenced below it discusses how the Times has been gutted of any investigative journalists, let alone reporters having that staff cut from 1600 to 400 in just the last few years, Plus, just as at other papers, the financial folks have taken over the journalists and kept them from big stories, so as not to offend their advertisers, and patrons. In fact the Times was basically in bed with USC and kept stories about athletics and the med school off of the pages because of the ties between the Times and USC so you can imagine that there is basically no one left to look into all of this as it relates to either school and the move.
Well... that book is a great read and a great exaggeration--and I am NO defender of those top editors. The Times still has many fine investigative reporters who have won Pulitzers right along. Here's my take on why they aren't covering UCLA's move: The sports department wants it to happen for reasons that include a congenital need to keep up with USC. So the sports staff is deliberately taking a flyer. The newsroom sees the story as largely a sports story and isn't carving out time for coverage by its busy higher ed reporter. What SHOULD happen is that sports dept writes about how the alumni and athletes feel and looks in detail at what happens to their schedules, travel expenses and so on. At the same time, the sports editor should have asked the news operation to plunge into the issue at the regents level. It's too late for any of that now.
This remains a very bad look for UCLA. Nobody in their right mind could honestly say the move to the B1G is good for the student athletes. There is no metric which says so, aside from some vague homage to playing in The Big House, The Horseshoe, Happy Valley, etc. And if the Bruins think competition in the PAC12 is tough (when did they last make a Rose Bowl or otherwise be relevant?) just wait until the schedule includes regular dates with Michigan, Ohio State, Penn St and probably soon Notre Dame. Regents: Punish the ingrates and send them packing. Pac12: Get busy adding schools who WANT to be here and help us fulfill our destiny to remain and build better a nationally competitive, media-worthy, value-add conference which succeeds in athletics, in the classroom and the laboratory.
It's all about the 2 superconferences and revenue. The west coast time zone TV windows keeps our teams from being seen by most of the country. Unfortunately that can't be changed.
UCLA stating a survey of 600 student athletes was done (without disclosing any details) to help justify the move to the Big10, is exactly what our political leaders are doing to the citizens of this once great country. The use of lies and deception to get what they want (the money) is sickening! That’s why I Iove the Ducks new coach, Dan Lanning. He has INTEGRITY, even when it hurts, and why he will be a great coach.
In the end, if UCLA and USC asked for a share of revenue more in line with their market value a decade ago, I am amazed no one told George this. It seems to me the guy is doing his job well right now. He seems to have kept the league together and if Mr. Canzano's reporting on the prospects for media deals pans out, that's a pretty good end result.
Despite all of this, I am still amazed that the UCLA Chancellor and the UC System President thought it was appropriate to approve something of this magnitude without going to the Board and the Governor. If I were either of those people, I would seriously consider starting a search for a new job when this is over with, as it is obvious they have lost the trust of one of the most powerful men in this Country.
They didn't go to the Regents because they knew it would get shot down with loud voices supporting Cal. Easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission.
Dan Lanning took a head coaching position at a major university without having any experience at the position or ties/history with the university. I can't stress enough what an accomplishment 8+ wins is in that situation. I have tried to find someone to compare him to, been looking since last night. Now I am reaching out to y'all to help.
-=CHALLANGE=-
Can anyone name a first time (not first year) head coach at a major school that was hired outside the program, found their own staff, and had 8+ wins the first year?
I was able to find a list of best first years for head coaches, but every single person on that list had either been a head coach before, promoted from within, or previous ties to the university. Justin Wilcox was a fist time head Coach at Cal. He didn't win 8 games until his third year and he had been a position coach there several years prior. That was the closest example I could find. Mark, Chip, Jimbo, Dabo, Lincoln... the list of first time head coaches being promoted from within the program is endless. Dan deserves all the credit in the world for what he was able to do this year.
You assume the cupboard was bare and he had to start over...Not hardly. He didn't take over a 1 win or 3 win program...he took over a program that was won...A LOT. 8 wins is not a big deal at Oregon since 2000. Sounds arrogant but it's fact.
I guess I need to ask...why is this so important? Great coaches are the ones that take a mediocre program in college or the pro's and turn it into a success. Jeff Tedford made Cal a success after it was in the wilderness for years. Bill Walsh turned Stanford into a force as did Harbaugh. As long as Phil Knight pours money in up there after established long term success I could probably win 7-8 games. If you want a top notch coaching job look no further than Oregon State.
The LA Times article by Ben Bloch about the survey sure made it sound like the UCLA student athletes were all in.
Thanks for the perspective John.
I still haven’t talked to one of my many UCLA fan friends who support the move although one said he will be happy they won’t have to play night games. His kids are about enter the phase of youth/club sports so soon he will appreciate night games as happened to me years ago.
My guess is there are many UCLA administrators that feel they acted too fast in making the move to the Big 10 and are hoping the UC Regents shut the move down. This would be good way for UCLA to save face and become the dominate recruiter in LA.
Let me see if I have this correct …..UCLA sneaks out the back door in the middle of the night without consulting anybody other than a few fellow disingenuous USC cohorts, then, after the fact, they send out a press release saying what a wonderful thing this is for their student athletes and that it has nothing to do with money…then they send out a bullsh*t survey asking said student athletes what they think? That is laughable, ridiculous and moronic.. What the hell is the kid supposed to say?…and I wonder how many recipients were asked to hit the transfer portal after criticizing them? The arrogance of these people never ceases to amaze me. Hey UCLA…. Next time you switch conferences….try sending your survey out BEFORE you bolt…
"laughable, ridiculous and moronic.."
That actually sums up most universities and colleges these days. Not to mention public education in general!
That is not true. But it is a valid opinion when it comes to athletics vs education.
USC & UCLA did not talk prior to their deal according to both schools. They are not sneaking out as you say, as they have given two years notice of their plans. Both schools were candid about the improved revenue streams in their announcements. Both stated the improved TV exposure would help their athletes in NIL deals due to larger audiences. Your characterizations are not supported by the facts.
So one third of a small sample of UCLA athletes favor this. The other two thirds are neutral or worse. UCLA won't cooperate with a journalist asking questions of the public university. The local press won't write anything critical, or publish the highly revealing open letter Bill Walton sent to you after your inquiry of him. No one other than the Pac 12 commissioner is even mentioning alumni opposition.
The deal was hatched in secrecy by administrators who won't open this up for public inspection. Heck of a way to reward your fans, UCLA. No wonder home games have abysmal attendance this season.
It's not really a survey is it?
Correct. It’s a polite reminder that we do not care what you think.
Bill Walton' UCLA s letter was published in full in both Times owned papers. He is an idiot who does not have to balance the UCLA budget. Stick to B-Ball Bill. "UCLA's fans" is a stretch when looking at the attendance at the Rose Bowl. They hardly have any fans.
You say the letter was published in full in the LA Times and the San Diego Union? Would you kindly show evidence? A Google search turns up its appearance in nearly every large West Coast newspaper and news org except for those two.
My UCLA alum friends who work at the Times (and detest the bolt to Big 10) say it never ran and won’t because of the bias there.
Perhaps you believe Walton is a buffoon who shouldn’t have credibility. Thing is, he wasn’t just expressing his opinion. He was quoting others who are opposed, something the Times isn’t doing.
The UCLA folks mismanaged a department to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in debt. Most of your readers could have done better. The USC athletic department mismanaged one of the top brands in football for a solid decade. All of your readers could have done better with head coach hires than Haden/Swann.
Crazy that these two clowns get the bailout because they are located in a large city.
And absolutely true that the bailout involved selling out their fans and students.
UCLA operated at a deficit of $19M in 2019... -$21.7M in 2020... I liked what Bill Walton said about not having to look to the midwest for the solution.
I've been saying this for months. Hundreds of athletes not playing basketball or football have just been turned into online students at UCLA and USC. I've taught at Oklahoma, Colorado, and now at Oregon for 10 years. Olympic sports athletes know they're not going to play professionally. Their payment, is their education. You can't get the same education while flying to Maryland, New Jersey, Minnesota and Michigan every other week for 5 hours each way. You miss wayyyyy too many classes. You become an online student. Why go to UCLA to be an online student when you can be in class at Cal? Or Stanford? Or UW? You wouldn't. Football and basketball already travel a ton or its only 6 road games. This could, and likely will hurt recruiting for all of the other sports. At least with all the students who care about the education they're getting. In my experience, at 3 major universities, athletes want to be in class a lot more than the cliche's would suggest, especially the softball, volleyball, and soccer players, the track and field athletes, and the rest. It was arrogant and stupid to think they don't want to be in class. I said this backlash was coming. It is. Online degree from UCLA or an in person degree from Cal? Most swimmers and tennis players will see you at Cal.
I think it's going to be very interesting to see what happens in the sunny, outdoor sports. I covered the Big Ten. You don't need to play Purdue in baseball to get to Omaha.
Great point, thanks!
I see other Pac-12 and California Universities using this as a recruiting tool against UCLA & USC. The Olympic sports may have an impact that will diminish both UCLA's & USC's competitive edge.
Well said. I would recommend that to any athlete
Quoting from your post John, " Among those who responded, 77 percent included “increased travel times” among their concerns. Another 66 percent noted “missed class times.”
This from Sam Connon who writes on Fan Nation: (Just now editing to say this information along with more details was in a link you provided in your post)
"To mitigate the travel impact alone, the school would spend an additional $4.62 million to $5.69 million annually to increase the number of charter flights and decrease the number of days away from campus. To enhance nutrition for all student athletes, the school would spend an additional $2.927 million annually.
Addressing the concerns around academic support and mental health services would cost just shy of $1.6 million a year, according to the report, bringing the total annual cost to between $9.15 and $10.32 million."
NOTE: these estimates come from UCLA so you could probably double them. In any case, this seems like a lot of money to spend on a few hundred athletes. Meanwhile, over 40,000 UC system graduate and academic workers are striking for better pay.
By the way, if you want to read about the kind of corruption that has permeated USC for decades, read "Bad City" by the Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter, Paul Pringle, for the Times. The history of USC is filled with racism, cheating, corruption in sports and other areas. Look where the whole phony athlete scandal originated. The book shows how they threw their weight around with Pasadena government and police, the Times and everyone else in the medical school scandal. So, is it any surprise they are leaving for the money, why no....many of us say, "do not let the door hit your backside." UCLA is different and always will be...
Not only did SC President Carol Folt lie to GK, along with B1G Commissioner Kevin Warren, she led the charge against the conference moving into the central time zone.
If SC was playing footsie with the B1G when Pac-12 expansion discussions were on the table IMO the Pac-12 should be suing the rear ends off of SC and UCLA.
Agree completely.
The books focus was the "cover up" of a dean involved in drugs and sex. What organization would want their reputation hurt by going public with such a story? They wanted to keep it in house for obvious reasons. No one wants to air their dirty laundry. Their are privacy laws that protect the accused, so going public can result in huge court ordered damages. A good reason to keep quiet until the issue is resolved which they did.
Yes coverup is a great word and it sure worked well for the Dr. Tyndall scandal also. Hey what is a billion or two for a coverup, right? The kind of scandals and discriminatory behavior that have plagued USC for 75 years are not what one expects from a top notch university in any way. At Cal, we may not win football games but our reputation and Nobel Prizes speak far louder than a national championship in football and I never have to make excuses for my alma mater, thank you very much.
Glenn, why the hate on USC? Were talking football here, not Tindall or Mike White your former football coach who was fired for telling his team to assault USC players back in the day. Note to you Glen; your Bears are not invited to the Big10 and the big bucks because they don't have the TV audience interest to justify their cost to the other schools. Both UCLA and USC do. Pretty simple.
Enjoy your Nobles.
Simple...there is a long history of bad behavior from USC. This is a school that had anti-Semitic quotas well into the 1970's, as well as racist admissions policies toward blacks and Asians. A school caught cheating in athletics I don't know how many times. A school where the whole phony athletic admissions scandal originated. And even if you ignore covering up sex scandals outside of athletics,, until just the last few years they were basically a 2nd rate academic institution acting like they were Stanford. I guess it is the same reason I detest Penn State for looking the other way when football became more important than scandals involving children...either academics is important or not, but football rules the USC roost too.
I'm old enough, having grown up in LaLa Land to remember it all and had family affected by those admission policies of old. Of course the old joke that the only thing all the Pac12 schools can agree on is that we detest USC is really correct and quite frankly I am looking forward to the school being gone. By the way that was not why Mike White was let go as it was about recruiting violations, something that would never happen at USC as that is a way of life in that program.
Hey dude, chill out. Your "hate" only hurts you. Are you a road rage guy as well I wonder. Over 40% of USC students are from overseas so apparently the "racists admissions policy" does not exist. Maybe your just upset that 70% of the time your Bears get beat in football. Our family has USC grads that have done very well. I don't hold it against Cal that Oppenheimer helped create the Atomic bomb that killed so many in Japan now do I. Peace brother.
Hate is such a strong word which was why I used the word detest, but a better description is that I have zero respect for USC as an institution of higher learning. Fight on DUDE!
Thanks for posting the survey. What has not been mentioned is that is USC leaves and UCLA stays then UCLA could reap a recruiting advantage in the LA market. Now I am not privy to whether parents in football and basketball attend their kid's games, but if I was sitting in a prospects living room and recruiting against USC I might suggest that to see your child play would you rather travel to Lincoln, New Jersey or any other frozen remote Big 10 site or head up to Seattle or the Bay Area?
In other sports such as crew I might ask whether a nice trip up to Sacramento by car is preferable to heading out to Indianapolis? If both these schools leave it really might advantage the other schools that parents can see their children by car most of the time versus flying across the country to these god forsaken Midwest sites with nothing to offer a visitor but corn, cheese and beer and ugly countryside.
I will be interested to see if the Pac-12 presents some solid numbers that mitigate the financial advantage of the Big Ten move.
more money will not change the fact that most games are played on TV at night when parents want to be home with their families. Larry Scott created this mess and it's too late to fix it.
If UCLA stays, do you think the Big 10 will simply target one more Pac 12 school to replace UCLA? There is a chance whomever is asked automatically accepts.
There is also a chance that staying is incredibly advantageous from a competitive point of view (i.e. football playoffs).
I asked that very question... the Pac-12 does not seem concerned that Oregon, Washington, Stanford would Replace UCLA.
Yee gads, I hadn't thought about that. It would be the Ducks so that they get all that Nike money would be my hunch. Although getting UW means the Seattle market which is far greater than all of Oregon put together, but Nike money is big money.
But the Seattle market with all of the Amazon layoffs is hurting, no?
My real worry is they will simply pick off another willing school, unless everyone is comfortable that the Pac 11 (with UCLA and the extra TV revenue it brings in) is well worth sticking around for.
The Pac-11 would become the Pac-12, and the advent of the enlarged CFP playoff would make the Pac have an easier path for any of them than the B1G would.
First, UCLA is not staying, so this is all just fun hypotheticals.
I think they'd go for Oregon. But, (1) Oregon has the same public school issues that UCLA has and (2) Oregon might be better off in the Pac. With UCLA, the money difference will be small, and the playoff potential is higher in the Pac.
They could go for Stanford, which would be great from the Pac-12's perspective. Stanford is doing almost nothing for the conference now.
I agree, it is likely hypothetical.
If Oregon were offered, I'd rather they stay in the Pac-12. I think the upside is better and frankly, if UCLA were forced to stay, it would likely mean a bigger TV deal in general.
This is a good point I hadn't considered. UCLA would really own Los Angeles if they stayed. USC would be even more of an afterthought in that city than they already are.
USC is playing well now in football, but frankly they have been an afterthought in almost all sports since Carroll left USC. Further, if you look at their overall performance, in the last 30 years or so, outside of the Carroll era, they've been a mediocre sports program at best.
I wish them well as my view is they are entitled to leave if they want to, but I've always thought they were more of a legend in their own minds rather than on the field.
Agree with this... could be a recruiting advantage.
USC owns LA, relative to UCLA, when it comes to football, and will continue to do so. Nothing else matters.
Not so fast my friend…UCLA will own the SoCal recruiting if UCLA stays (which wont happen).
Now that is exactly right. Plus…. BIG10 football is not deep in talented teams
When was the last time the athletes' voices were important? Please, remind me
Should have mattered.
Never has John. You know it.
When the Gipper told Knute he wasn't attending class but shooting pool instead and that was OK?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: If the UC Regents actually care about STUDENTS, they will stop the move to the Big-10.
It will be interesting to see if they make this a tough exit or just posture.
and they would have surveyed them before, not after, making the decision.
Excellent piece, John. Please have yourself cloned and send the new one to cover sports in LA.
Indeed. Seen little “journalism” on this huge story in LA Times. Very odd.
As for The Athletic, they cover USC football, but not UCLA. I wonder if that changes in B10?!
Yep. Almost silent. Plus... the Times has the Board of Regents fully sourced and wired by a terrific reporter who has covered California higher ed for decades. Why isn't the news side of the Times pushing her to work her sources in advance of this meeting. What's going on? What are the considerations, the pressure points? Instead, it's the worst kind of coverage: wait until the meeting to see what's decided, at which point the outcome is sprung on the public after the fact.
I worked at the Times for 21 years (news, not sports) before retiring. We never would have handled a story this way. I find it outrageous and I will now shut the heck up.
Bob...if you read the book I referenced below it discusses how the Times has been gutted of any investigative journalists, let alone reporters having that staff cut from 1600 to 400 in just the last few years, Plus, just as at other papers, the financial folks have taken over the journalists and kept them from big stories, so as not to offend their advertisers, and patrons. In fact the Times was basically in bed with USC and kept stories about athletics and the med school off of the pages because of the ties between the Times and USC so you can imagine that there is basically no one left to look into all of this as it relates to either school and the move.
Well... that book is a great read and a great exaggeration--and I am NO defender of those top editors. The Times still has many fine investigative reporters who have won Pulitzers right along. Here's my take on why they aren't covering UCLA's move: The sports department wants it to happen for reasons that include a congenital need to keep up with USC. So the sports staff is deliberately taking a flyer. The newsroom sees the story as largely a sports story and isn't carving out time for coverage by its busy higher ed reporter. What SHOULD happen is that sports dept writes about how the alumni and athletes feel and looks in detail at what happens to their schedules, travel expenses and so on. At the same time, the sports editor should have asked the news operation to plunge into the issue at the regents level. It's too late for any of that now.
It covers UCLA but does not have a writer dedicated to UCLA.
That’s a huge difference
This remains a very bad look for UCLA. Nobody in their right mind could honestly say the move to the B1G is good for the student athletes. There is no metric which says so, aside from some vague homage to playing in The Big House, The Horseshoe, Happy Valley, etc. And if the Bruins think competition in the PAC12 is tough (when did they last make a Rose Bowl or otherwise be relevant?) just wait until the schedule includes regular dates with Michigan, Ohio State, Penn St and probably soon Notre Dame. Regents: Punish the ingrates and send them packing. Pac12: Get busy adding schools who WANT to be here and help us fulfill our destiny to remain and build better a nationally competitive, media-worthy, value-add conference which succeeds in athletics, in the classroom and the laboratory.
Very interesting to see the fallout.
It's all about the 2 superconferences and revenue. The west coast time zone TV windows keeps our teams from being seen by most of the country. Unfortunately that can't be changed.
UCLA stating a survey of 600 student athletes was done (without disclosing any details) to help justify the move to the Big10, is exactly what our political leaders are doing to the citizens of this once great country. The use of lies and deception to get what they want (the money) is sickening! That’s why I Iove the Ducks new coach, Dan Lanning. He has INTEGRITY, even when it hurts, and why he will be a great coach.
In the end, if UCLA and USC asked for a share of revenue more in line with their market value a decade ago, I am amazed no one told George this. It seems to me the guy is doing his job well right now. He seems to have kept the league together and if Mr. Canzano's reporting on the prospects for media deals pans out, that's a pretty good end result.
Despite all of this, I am still amazed that the UCLA Chancellor and the UC System President thought it was appropriate to approve something of this magnitude without going to the Board and the Governor. If I were either of those people, I would seriously consider starting a search for a new job when this is over with, as it is obvious they have lost the trust of one of the most powerful men in this Country.
I HOPE GK is doing his job well but we will not know before the new proposed media deal is announced.
They didn't go to the Regents because they knew it would get shot down with loud voices supporting Cal. Easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission.
Is that a picture of the Three Stooges at the 2020 basketball tournament?
I want to go back to Lanning today...
Dan Lanning took a head coaching position at a major university without having any experience at the position or ties/history with the university. I can't stress enough what an accomplishment 8+ wins is in that situation. I have tried to find someone to compare him to, been looking since last night. Now I am reaching out to y'all to help.
-=CHALLANGE=-
Can anyone name a first time (not first year) head coach at a major school that was hired outside the program, found their own staff, and had 8+ wins the first year?
I was able to find a list of best first years for head coaches, but every single person on that list had either been a head coach before, promoted from within, or previous ties to the university. Justin Wilcox was a fist time head Coach at Cal. He didn't win 8 games until his third year and he had been a position coach there several years prior. That was the closest example I could find. Mark, Chip, Jimbo, Dabo, Lincoln... the list of first time head coaches being promoted from within the program is endless. Dan deserves all the credit in the world for what he was able to do this year.
John Robinson… USC … 1976… went to the Rose Bowl in year 1… look at his week 1 result… bad loss.
...and was an OC there 72-74. I'd call that pretty strong ties to the program.
You assume the cupboard was bare and he had to start over...Not hardly. He didn't take over a 1 win or 3 win program...he took over a program that was won...A LOT. 8 wins is not a big deal at Oregon since 2000. Sounds arrogant but it's fact.
I assume nothing. I am simply asking for someone to name a fist time coach that had the same success. I can't do it.
Does that success include the 40= point loss to Georgia?
1st year at UW Chris Peterson won 8 games.
He was already a successful head coach at BSU. I am looking for a FIRST TIME head coach hired from outside the program.
Kind of picking nits considering he moved up from the G5 to the P5?
But I understand your point. And I do not know of a guy with no HC experience who won 8 games year 1 in the P5.
G5 p5 irrelevant, experienced head coach is the relevant part.
The UTSA coach?
7 wins first year.
I guess I need to ask...why is this so important? Great coaches are the ones that take a mediocre program in college or the pro's and turn it into a success. Jeff Tedford made Cal a success after it was in the wilderness for years. Bill Walsh turned Stanford into a force as did Harbaugh. As long as Phil Knight pours money in up there after established long term success I could probably win 7-8 games. If you want a top notch coaching job look no further than Oregon State.
I agree, Oregon State has one great coach. Kudo's to him. Lanning took over a very well stocked team ...started on third base as they say.
Tedford won 7 his first year.
I'm talking who won 8+
Cal won 1 game before tedford got there so honorable mention for sure.
The LA Times article by Ben Bloch about the survey sure made it sound like the UCLA student athletes were all in.
Thanks for the perspective John.
I still haven’t talked to one of my many UCLA fan friends who support the move although one said he will be happy they won’t have to play night games. His kids are about enter the phase of youth/club sports so soon he will appreciate night games as happened to me years ago.
My guess is there are many UCLA administrators that feel they acted too fast in making the move to the Big 10 and are hoping the UC Regents shut the move down. This would be good way for UCLA to save face and become the dominate recruiter in LA.