102 Comments
User's avatar
Rick Larson's avatar

Transfer portal for players

Transfer portal for coaches

Transfer portal for college teams

Transfer portal for broadcast rights

Transfer portal for fans? Roller Derby has more loyalty!

Expand full comment
John Canzano's avatar

You are not wrong.

Expand full comment
Punter's avatar

Watching Army Navy game today. How refreshing! I know it’s not like our minor league college NFL teams in the power 5 --- But no NIL OR TRANSFER PORTALS for the TRUE MEN who will soon be putting their lives on the line for all the spoiled, pampered, and narcissistic players like , well JTD who I read is going for his 4 Th college and needs a personal chef +. Go Army Go Navy I truly respect each of you more than all the rest. Ok. Go Air Force and Merchant Marine too. I’m done with the nonsense.

Expand full comment
jon joseph's avatar

Sorry I did not read this spot on comment before posting the same above.

Expand full comment
SCOTT SMITH's avatar

Ha, fan loyalty. You do realize us "fans" are the very reason all those things you listed exist, right? We couldn't just enjoy the game as it was--a simple Saturday afternoon football contest between students of a particular school. No, we had to turn it into an extension of our egos and a form of entertainment (worship?) that stoked all our misplaced values. We weren't satisfied with just win-loss records--we had to have a National Champion! We then made the term 'student-athlete' obsolete. HS football players didn't seek celebrity--we fans created it! And guess who observed this transformation and capitalized? It was media, college presidents, boosters, players, coaches, the NCAA, and any other opportunist who smelled a market. No, we have no room to complain. This present state of hyper-capitalism is all of our own making. They harnessed our loyalty into an industry and we cooperated every step of the way.

Expand full comment
jon joseph's avatar

Amen. And the guy who came up the 'need' to have one champion, SEC commissioner Ray Kramer.

See where the SEC was in 1983 compared to today. Ditto the Pac-12.

The folks who agreed to allow the Rose Bowl to be the equivalent of the Peach Bowl were, IMO, brain dead.

Expand full comment
Craig Patti's avatar

Preach!

Expand full comment
RW's avatar

I can’t understand how the UCLA AD didn’t square this away with the UC Chancellors before publicly committing to the move...this makes no sense

I don’t particularly care either way, but it’ll be very weird without them in the conference

Expand full comment
John Canzano's avatar

you are asking the right question

Expand full comment
Rick Larson's avatar

You're first sentence is right about getting permission. It's an unfortunate and not uncommon misstep in the education world when people forget who the real decision makers are for the organization.

Expand full comment
RW's avatar

The UCLA AD has a legal team. They had to know they weren’t the ones to ultimately call the shot.

The only thing that makes sense is that the athletic department went public first to put all the pressure on the Chancellors to make them the bad guys if it goes sideways

Expand full comment
Geoff's avatar

They knew what would happen if they asked. It would be delayed and debated and leaked and then the offer would be rescinded.

Ask forgiveness as the saying goes...

Expand full comment
Craig Patti's avatar

The old adage “act now, beg for forgiveness later”

Expand full comment
SCOTT SMITH's avatar

Why do you assume that the UCLA legal team knew "they weren't the ones to ultimately call the shot?" Perhaps they actually knew the opposite, and this UC Regents meeting is nothing but Newsome's theater?

Expand full comment
RW's avatar

I’ll be honest, I’m not familiar with this theater you mention. It’s probably not relevant or related.

I’m not making any assumptions...I’m just smart enough to understand how this world works.

Expand full comment
Pedro in Texas's avatar

The regents have the final say. Theater maybe but they do have the power here.

Expand full comment
Doug Williams's avatar

I wonder if all the other public universities in the conference have heard from the powers that be "Don't try this crap before talking to us first". John, have your heard from the Oregon higher Ed board on this? Would they let Oregon go if they wanted to?

Expand full comment
jonnny boy's avatar

The UC chancellors have no say. It's the board of regents and they would have made a move impossible but imposing countess "studies" prior to giving any OK, which likely never would have come.

Expand full comment
Curly Moe & Larry's avatar

How could this go this far without the head guy at UCLA not being fired, Is the guy stupid?

Expand full comment
chris's avatar

UCLA was an asst AD at Ohio State and Michigan for over a decade and steered them this way

I also think its a play over which UCLA gets a raw deal on the costs to use its own facilities.

Expand full comment
Jason Houston's avatar

Public universities get so little actual funding from the State these days (about 10-15% of total budgets) that the power of the public Boards is limited in actual practice. Indeed, these boards have too much power, in my option. So, on one hand they have the power to approve/disapprove of these decisions, but then they leave a huge revenue hole they have to fill with public funds...or increase tuition/fees. So, ADs have a lot of power as a major driver of revenue that is not tied to tuition/fees, which is a hot button issue with voters. Turning down an extra 40 million or so in revenue would be a bitter pill to swallow when the alternatives are raising tuition/fees and or cutting programs (non-revenue sports, academic programs, etc).

Expand full comment
Curly Moe & Larry's avatar

Sorry, athletics are a VERY small portion of total budgets and revenue at major universities. I am sure UCLA athletics is less than 5% of the total operation. And major donars are NOT simply football fans,

Expand full comment
Jason Houston's avatar

Sure, it is a smallish chunk of budgets, but it is a painless and apolitical chunk. It is easy money in crushed budges. It is not the source of higher taxes or higher tuition/fees. So, turning down 40 million of "free" money annually is hard. I am not arguing one or another (I wish UCLA would stay in Pac10/11/2), but I am just saying asking the state Board (or whatever they call it in California) to make the hard choice is unrealistic. People have been calling for universities to be "run like a business" now for decades. Well, this is what it looks like.

Expand full comment
jon joseph's avatar

Likely a non-disclosure clause by and between, SC, the B1G and UCLA before the deal was reached and announced.

This deal caught GK with his pants down around his ankles.

Expand full comment
Russ East's avatar

John Canzano. Articles like this are not found anywhere else in print or online media. I’m lucky to have found you and appreciate your coverage of west coast and PAC-12 sports like no other writer. (Ok, your podcast partner Jon Wilner is up there with you!).

Living in Seattle, sports stories stop at the Oregon border. You bring it all home for a Beav/Duck fan in Seattle. Thanks so much!

Expand full comment
ELB's avatar

As a lifelong PAC fan this conference realignment is a massive disruption to the foundation of the conference. When I think of PAC schools, UCLA is at the the heart of the conference. It just seems wrong for them to be anywhere else. I wish the 5-10% chance was enough and they could find a way to make it work. USC and a grip of their fans have always felt as if they saw themselves as better than the rest of us. They needed to be babied and coddled and reaffirmed constantly. So, USC leaving kind of felt like an inevitability and a relief as much as it feels wrong. If you don’t want to be here, then stop whining and go. UCLA won’t stay, but they will be missed. It’s truly sad they have to go for money. Larry Scott literally killed the PAC 12 as we know it, and a list of presidents and chancellors share in the blame for giving him the power to do it. What an awful, self-absorbed failure he was to dig the conference into this massive hole.

Expand full comment
Alvarado's avatar

You got a TV Network that nobody can see, largely because nobody wants to pay to watch women play soccer. Stanford and Cal can't (or won't) compete. The money isn't there to keep up with the Big 10 or the SEC.

Oregon and Washington are looking for lifelines. Now San Diego State?

USC ain't whining about it. We're gone. You guys can stick around and find out the cost of pointless tradition.

Expand full comment
Rick Larson's avatar

And there's a reason they call it the University of Spoiled Children

Expand full comment
Curly Moe & Larry's avatar

not seeing much reality here. Looking for lifelines? huh?

Expand full comment
ehuddl59's avatar

I kinda hope they stay. But since it’s all but certain they are leaving. With the 12 team playoff they will have a hard time even sniffing Big 10 title game let alone FBS playoffs. They will look at this move with regret.

Expand full comment
John Canzano's avatar

I don't think this ends well for them competitively.

Expand full comment
Buck's avatar

It will be a disaster for UCLA

They already have trouble drawing fans and having the likes of Purdue, Northwestern, Rutgers, Maryland, among others, rolling through won't help.

The amount of times they are hosting OSU, Michigan or Penn State will be very limited over a 10 year period.

Expand full comment
jon joseph's avatar

IMO, UCLA football in the B1G = today's Minnesota.

Expand full comment
Michael Lewallen's avatar

Love college sports, not the professional leagues of football and basketball. Move them out of the universities. Let some students lace-up and get on the field... Ducks vs. Huskies.

Go Ducks volleyball...........Elite Eight.

Expand full comment
Craig Patti's avatar

At least with pro sports, no one is hiding the “business” aspect. College sports wraps is into the regional “it’s your state school” loyalty heartstrings.

Expand full comment
Charles A Roseberry's avatar

Stanford also.

Expand full comment
Charles A Roseberry's avatar

Stanford also.

Expand full comment
Drex Heikes's avatar

And the fact that those of us in Los Angeles have no clue which way this turns is an indictment of the local media. The LA Times has the reporting chops to be out front in this, to know what regents are thinking, what information they consider critical, to assess the politics in a state where, counter-intuitively, the Bay Area has always had more clout than Southern California.

Instead we wait for the magician to pull back the curtain at a meeting. The Times is doing nothing, hoping its unethical silence will result in approval.

UCLA has presented a budget for the move that includes spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in mental health counselors for their athletes.

Think about that for a minute. Then tell me why this is a good thing for student athletes? As for fans, I have exactly zero UCLA alumni friends who want this to happen.

Expand full comment
Glenn Benson's avatar

The Times is a shell of itself. The days of the 10 pound Sunday paper and investigative journalism are long gone.

Expand full comment
Brent's avatar

Does expansion seem like less of a priority now that the new playoff system is in place?

4 conference champs will get 1st round byes. With a Pac-10 with every team playing each other and thus no need for a conference championship I question how much value San Diego St really offers? The new playoff system seems to disadvantage large conferences vs small conference in my view. I also think USC and UCLA going it alone as the sole West coast reps to the B1G will ultimately be a spectacular failure that collapses in their faces but time will tell.

Expand full comment
Buck's avatar

Totally agree Brent

I'd prefer to stay at 10 and have everyone play each other again

Expand full comment
Pete Ferryman's avatar

I've been saying the same thing, Brent. A first round bye in a 12-team playoff will be absolutely HUGE going forward. For years to come, the odds of winning the Pac-12 will likely be a lot better than the odds of winning the Big-10, and the top 4 conference champs get that automatic bye. I've been scratching my head wondering why this hasn't received more attention.

Expand full comment
Thom Koshinsky's avatar

One thing about Conf. Champs getting byes... This year would have Clemson as the 3 seed (GAH) they aren't even in the top 12 talent wise, the top 4 seeds should still be picked by committee, in my opinion

Expand full comment
jon joseph's avatar

I'd love to see a true round robin schedule lead to the conference champion but the 13th game brings in money and could be crucial in regards to PO seeding.

Expand full comment
Brent's avatar

You can do both like the current Big 12 is doing if that 13th game is that important. As often as not it might hurt you though as a conference in getting a bid (see Utah loss in 2019 and USC this year. Also Baylor beating OSU in conference champ last year for that matter.)

Expand full comment
LionLT's avatar

The Pac 12 should do everything possible to keep UCLA. If they leave its because the Pac 12 failed them in revenue. Its time to update the The Rose Bowl and expand to San Diego. Send money toward Colorado and the Arizona schools too. Oregon State is on the right track. It's time to reinvest in our beloved conference.

Expand full comment
jon joseph's avatar

Do you believe it is time as do I, to base revenue distribution on capital invested in the money ball sports, success in said sports, game attendance and total revenue for a given athletic department?

One reason that SC is gone as likely is UCLA, is because of even revenue sharing of media money.

If something like this is not done UW and Oregon will be ripe to be picked off.

Expand full comment
Pierre Gatling's avatar

If the UC Regents deny UCLA, the backup plan for the Big Ten is to add Washington and Oregon. The Pac-12 is dammed either way. They’re better off letting UCLA leave.

Expand full comment
jon joseph's avatar

Pierre, according to college revenue division math Oregon and UW are not 'accretive.' But Rutgers, Indiana, Purdue and Northwestern are accretive?

Voodoo math in support of all teams no matter how good or bad getting a 'socialist' cut of revenue in a rampant capitalist environment.

I expect that this model will change; or, the CFB 'owners' once the Super League is formed will agree to a media revenue share as have NFL owners.

Expand full comment
Pierre Gatling's avatar

There is truth to what you’re saying. Northwestern and Indiana are original Big Ten members. Rutgers was allowed entrance because they give BIG access tNYC which is the #1 media market. LA is #2 and Chicago 3. Northwestern is in Chicago.

Expand full comment
jon joseph's avatar

Yes as to location but does this ipso facto = a $60M+ bottom line?

And Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska were originally brought in with a smaller piece of the revenue pie

Expand full comment
Geoff's avatar

I keep thinking about how poorly run the UCLA athletic department must be to get in such financial trouble. They have a massive (and very wealthy) alumni base, a robust and successful collection of sports and are located in one of the largest and wealthiest communities in the country.

The deficits they run are fairly easy to understand. They don’t earn enough ticket revenues (low attendance for football and MBB) and they don’t own a football stadium. But those were problems years ago as well.

Expand full comment
jon joseph's avatar

Lot of 'dead money' going to coaches they fired. Also real structural issues including the CBB teams having to rent out the on campus arena.

Expand full comment
Geoff's avatar

Dead money should be easy to shift to donors. The facilities issue is the bigger one.

Think about LA area stadium projects in the last couple decades. Rose Bowl renovation. SoFi. Cal State’s stadium (LA Galaxy play there). I’m of the opinion that UCLA had options but lacked the vision or courage to get something done.

Expand full comment
jon joseph's avatar

I want to ask a Bruins woman basketball player what she thinks after flying cross country in the dead of winter to play Rutgers in basketball?

Expand full comment
Charles A Roseberry's avatar

Appreciate the good reporting, John.

Expand full comment
CJ's avatar

The game is dead. We are just here left arguing over the semantics of it.

Expand full comment
Pierre Gatling's avatar

The UCLA administration did not break any UC Regent rules. It clearly states that each university can make their own decisions when it comes to their athletic departments finances, hiring coaches, etc... The UC Regents changed their rules after UCLA decided to leave for the BIG 10. I think the regents will require UCLA to share a portion of their revenue with CAL. If the regents decide to block the move, there is a possibility of a 500 million dollar lawsuit from the Big 10. The new media rights deal included USC and UCLA. I also think the Big Ten will eventually invite Cal and Stanford being that the Bay Area is the 5th largest media market.

Expand full comment
chris's avatar

It has been reported that there is a $15M buyout before any games are played. If this is, in fact, true then the Pac 12 will pay it out of the media dollars and be done with it.

So long as the CFP is open to all the major conferences and the money gets closer, it is a no brainer to stay. Less travel costs - and coach salaries will be greater in B12 over P12 - they just wiil, If the money is close staying is much better.

Invite San Diego State and the pairing is back to 12, Look at options going forward for football and basketball only expansion, and keep it all fluid.

Expand full comment
jon joseph's avatar

In today's environment there is no way the ACC, B12 and the Pacific Conference however structured can close the media revenue gap with the B1G and the SEC.

I think we will see the ACC break up long before its deal with ESPN expires in 2036.

IMHO we are headed to the days of the AFL (B1G) and the NFL (SEC.)

Expand full comment
TJA's avatar

Stanford and Cal have football attendance as bad as UCLA. They are barely followed in the Bay Area. They won't bring more eyeballs despite being in a large market.

Expand full comment
Calfan94's avatar

They made a selfish strategic choice to ask for forgiveness rather than permission. If the Regents had been involved they would have asked for Cal to be included as a package.

Expand full comment
Curly Moe & Larry's avatar

these comments are comical. It all makes sense if we accept that NONE of most programs care one %$#@&* about the general health of college football. So Stanford is equal to UCLA? And YOU have no doubt you know exactly the BIG 10 and Stanford would do. I hoped UCLA wouls stay simply because it would screw USC a little. I lke the PAC and am fine. I will miss reading know everthing types predicting everything and being off target mostly. So UCLA gets more money and returns to sub .500 status where they have been for 8 of the last 10 seasons.

Expand full comment