A lot of bitter, butthurt people crying because they got dumped for a better conference. UCLA doesn’t owe Cal anything. Absolutely nothing. Cal’s athletic department is subsidized by taxpayers while UCLA’s is not. If these political hacks want to seriously go down this path then they open the door to legitimate attacks on their own policies that placed UCLA in the position to have to leave the conference. It was Newsom’s lockdowns and other misguided policies that forced UCLA into a full year without revenue worth $70 million. As a privately funded athletic department like UCLA that is economically not possible without drastic measures like changing conferences. Newsom and the Democrat hacks who control Sacramento should have thought about this stuff when they placed these restrictions. What they fail to understand however is that Southern California controls nearly enough of the state to pass constitutional amendments that would divest the UC regents authority over UCLA. The Bruins will secede from the UC regents if the regents continue to violate the UC charter. Being bitter and butthurt is not the solution to whatever problems your school faces.
UCLA's debt problems go far beyond Covid and Newsome's steps helped California emerge from Covid with a strong economy and a relatively low death rate compared to other states.
That strong economy has resulted in a flood of tax revenue that will benefit UCLA and other schools.
The Higher Ed system in California is well funded by the taxpayers, to the tune of $41 Billion this year. States like Florida only spend $100 billion or so on everything.
Schools like UCLA are also receiving a significant bump in state funding this year.
It is hardly Newsome's fault UnderArmour backed out of its deal and definitely not his fault that UCLA essentially refuses to provide the Athletic Department funding common in other schools.
It is also not his fault that UCLA has no control over the Rose Bowl, as opposed to having its own stadium which would generate significant revenue for the University.
It's also not his fault that UCLA donors don't step up to the plate and support their athletic programs.
Yeah Florida gets a lot more educational bang for the buck with 40% of the students at 13% of the cost. They also have a fully funded pension plan, shockingly lower taxes a balanced budget in surplus, much lower cost of living and much better infrastructure. If only California could get what it pays for (before the 4.5 billion deficit this year), think what a state it could be. They could actually just skip charging tuition at those universities, for one. They pay 15k per student. Instead students pay another 13k in the UC system (in state). That's before fees. How nice would it be to trim the fat and Make those universities that didn't saddle students with huge quantities of debt. Cal states are much cheaper, sure, and the universities of California aren't wildly expensive but few states throw around that sort of per student funding. Many have comparable or even cheaper tuition.
Interesting comment and yet, the U.S. Department of Labor reported that Florida, not California, is the most unaffordable state in the Country for its residents, in large part because Florida pays such low wages relative to its cost of living.
In fact, a recent Rasmussen U study confirmed the same thing. Florida has the Nation's lowest average salary, when adjusted for the state's actual cost of living. California's is not much better, but still 10% higher in terms of actual buying power.
Oh, and when you factor in those low salaries, suddenly the roughly $22,000 cost to attend the University of Florida for instate kids living in dorms doesn't appear so cheap-in fact it is not.
Despite all the chatter about Florida, it is an exceedingly poor state with a low per capita real GDP and low wages. Further, places like Miami now cost more to live than LA, without the 35% higher wages California offers.
Florida's per capita GDP is in the bottom 20 and California's is in the top 5.
California's natural death rate is substantially higher than that of California, and it is not just because Florida is the home to elderly. The death rate problem spans almost all age groups.
California is expensive and its tax structure is higher than Florida's. In return, you get things like a longer life span, a healthier life and a better lifestyle.
I wonder how you factor in the percentage of a states population that is retire and lives on pensions and investments instead of wages. My guess is that FL would have a high percentage of over 60 relative to CA.
This reminds me of the old saying regarding "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics". Florida is comparable to live in than the "lowest cost of living state" Mississippi. The only difference on the two states across the bulk of their area would be you pay less taxes in Florida. Florida is distorted by higher COL in a small amount of areas (South Florida, east of the glades, and south west Florida though north of the glades toward Tampa) and a rapidly expanding population. It's still fairly cheap to live in several of Florida's bigger cities... and that is a laughable prospect in California. In fact... finding an affordable house anywhere in California is laughable. Florida house prices are 40% lower, median rent, 40% lower, gas is 30% lower (and only in this bubble, it's much worse in California normally), food and energy prices are all significantly higher in California and wages are 30% lower on average (in Florida) but the wealth distribution (while bad in Florida) is basically the worst in California. We can talk about how an average wage in California blahblah... but the fact is it's less likely you get such a wage in California. A very quick check on median rent prices in Miami reveal it is still cheaper to live there than LA (food, gas, tax, energy all being lower as well). It's getting close... but it's still about 20% more and that's one of the closer areas of costs. Doesn't fully negate your point but it's not as bad as you suggest.
As to the students, yeah, it's better to be cheaper, basically always. You can go wherever you want afterward but toting around a smaller debt is better than low salaries in a state you aren't forced to stay in after you graduate. I used to have an acquaintance that graduated from UF and moved to San Fran to work. You can safely bet she preferred paying off the smaller student loans. Most students are funded in education through scholarships, family, loans and so forth. It's better on all fronts to spend less on the education outside of full-ride scholarships from the university... though even then you might have some other scholarships that go farther in a small Florida college town than they could ever hope to in the Bay Area.
Well, if you mean the university, it's actually nice enough. If you mean Gainesville, fair enough. If you mean the state, that's just nonsense hate unless you just hate the weather, which I can also understand (personal preference I share). It's a state. It's too big for classification based on political belief and considering its more libertarian and less likely to interfere in your life, it's a better state to live in than California in myriad ways. I've lived in both, and California is lovely, with better looking (though cold and filled with creatures that bite and sting) beaches. It has far more diversity in biomes (something Florida generally wins in) and is better for the naturalist minded. I saw a lot of wildlife, more than any state or country I've ever lived in and that's a long list relative to most people. I wasn't the type to go looking either.
That said, the thought of wanting to own a house is a pipe dream for 90% of residents not already in one for decades (as in many of those people couldn't afford one now). Florida is a much poorer state but it never feels that way to the majority. You can buy a nice house or mansion or whatever for a minority fraction of what it costs in California. The cost of living is so much lower, in fact, that an average wage in Florida (something much easier to attain in Florida too, far better wealth distribution) goes farther than the average wage in California. And the difference is over 20k! That said, the coastal weather in California is really great. In Florida only Miami area has great weather for as long as it remains above water.
Can't wait to hear the spin when UCLA has to cut 10 sports teams, half of them women's, because they couldn't go to the Big 10 and collect the extra cash to pay off the Athletic Department debt. . Stanford was going cut ELEVEN teams but got a reprieve. UCLA won't be so fortunate. Meanwhile, the Big 10 takes Stanford as a replacement and both the Victory Bell and The Big Game disappear from the schedule and the Pac 12 still crumbles. Well played, geniuses.
If Stanford cuts programs, that's on them. They have a $30 BILLION endowment and had a donor pay for their football stadium outright. Until Riley showed up, their football coach made 2x the next highest paid coach in the conference. If they value their programs, they can keep them.
Isn’t the endowment allocated to very specific causes chosen by the donor as opposed to a general slush fund that a University can use however they wish? I don’t think they could use money that is allocated to the computer science program to shore up women’s crew…
Jane Stanford gave a huge portion of the endowment. I imagine she (the wife of Leland Stanford) would not have foreseen college athletics becoming what they are to restrict it specifically. I'm sure she wouldn't want it spent on athletics though.
I don't know the specifics of their endowment, but it's likely that some of it is tabbed for specific uses and programs, and some is flexible. Regardless it's a massive endowment, and there is no doubt enough there to serve pretty much anything they want it to on the annual interest alone.
People forget that the University of California is a single entity with 10 separate campuses governed by the Board of Regents which is picked by the governor and the current governor, Newsom, being the Chair. The Chancellors have some independence, but at the end of the day are under the governance of the Board of Regents. And the president of the Regents is only a 2 year office picked by the Regents. I think since the Regents manage all property of the campuses, they should charge the Big 10 100 million a year to use UCLA property.
Technically you are not exactly correct. From the UC Regents website …. “The Governor is officially the president of the Board of Regents; however, in practice the presiding officer of the Regents is the Chair of the Board, elected from among its body for a one-year term, beginning July 1. The current Chair is Regent Rich Leib and Vice Chair is Regent Gareth Elliott.”
There's nothing here for Newsom beyond just getting his name on the sports page. There's no "winning" and the regents have much bigger problems to tackle than sports at UCLA. His people need to be smarter than this.
LA has an Olympics coming in just over five years. Better for Newsom to spend political capital at that.
Sure it will bring back some of the LA market, but it leads to two questions:
1. Would USC go it alone? (I assume yes)
2. Does that make B1G poach another PAC12 school? Oregon?
I would assume losing Oregon would be worse for Pac12 than UCLA. Sure revenue with UCLA is better, but credibility of strength of program would be devastating.
The Pac-12 pulls in Notre Dame to take USC's spot. Hah hah. In all seriousness, I don't think Oregon helps their TV deal in any large way, but they'd have to anchor USC to another school on the Left Coast it would seem.
As a native Californian and an Oregon Alum, it sickens me to watch the demise of a conference I grew up watching and then being a part of. All for what? Greed, media networks, and billionaires. It’s so gross. ZERO thought was given to the fans and the people who have supported the PAC-12. No, it’s all about getting bigger, but not better. The chase for the almighty buck by institutions that largely don’t even need the dollars because most of the schools in the Big 10 and the PAC-12 have HUGE endowments. College football has now been ruined forever in my mind. So sad. Ted B., New York, NY
The best move for the UC Regents would be to require the Big Ten to take in Berkeley as well as UCLA, so the Bears could get their own share of B1G athletic revenues. If Stanford is seen as a cinch to switch leagues (in the event Notre Dame joins), why shouldn't its Big Game rival do likewise? And Big Ten presidents would certainly like to share in Berkeley's substantial research $$$$.
As reported in the LA Time today (July 21) and as expected Newsom has no way to block UCLA's move to the Big Ten....
"As governor, Newsom has no authority to squelch the deal because the UC system is constitutionally autonomous. As a regent, he could ask his board colleagues to consider directives to UCLA about the deal — to explain it in a public meeting, for instance, or to propose ways to mitigate the financial fallout on UC Berkeley. The UC Office of the President delegated authority in 1991 [Policy DA 1058] to campus chancellors to execute their own contracts, including intercollegiate athletic agreements.
...UC President Michael V. Drake knew about UCLA’s conversations with Big Ten officials. But regents were not consulted then and only a “handful” were notified just before the decision was announced and told to keep it confidential, said Board of Regents Chair Richard Leib. UCLA made the decision “under broad-based delegated authority which didn’t necessarily anticipate this type of action,” Leib said.
While any discussions would necessarily need to be closely guarded, given the sensitivity of negotiations, Newsom would like to have seen a process that included a meeting with regents, potentially in closed session, where UCLA could have outlined the proposed deal, explained the direct benefit to student-athletes, and solicited ideas on how to mitigate the harm to UC Berkeley and other conference members, [Newson aid] Chida said.
Ideas raised have included requiring UCLA to pay UC Berkeley a Pac-12 “exit fee” or share the TV revenue with its sister campus — conditions that the regents could potentially impose.
...Student Regent Marlenee Blas Pedral, a UC Berkeley law student, said the board wanted more transparency and communication from UCLA. She said she found out about the Pac-12 exit in the media.
...“I think UCLA should definitely do something to help mitigate some of the potential harm that’s going to come out of this,” she said, adding that she was not yet “100% sure” what that should be."
They might (and should) punish them, but I can't see them forcing ucla to stay. I think they should make it a law that UCLA and Cal have to be in the same conference where possible. Guess that would be strange since no one wants the other uc schools teams in the pac.
Seriously, guys, Newsome only cares about how much money and/or power he can gain. Given the steady implosion of California with entrepreneurs snd giant corporations alike heading for liberty in Texas, Newsome isn't going to bitch about UCLA picking up an incrementsl $50 to $80 million by joining yhe BIG.
You will be Surprise what UCLA can do.I don't think the Big10 are that tough with the exception of OSU and Pen State and occasionally MSU.I think everyone are miss judging how hard is to win in the PAC12 and give a lot of credit to the BIG12 ,I know they are known for being tough but,who have made it to the College Playoff other than OSU? PAC12 have two team that made it and one made it to the final..help me out if I am wrong .
The most likely resolution will be both sides agree that UCLA will vouch for UC Berkeley’s eventual admission into the Big Ten as soon as the conference decides to expand. Once Notre Dame makes a decision to join the Big Ten, they will also expand to Stanford, Berkeley, and Washington. This should happen within a few years, no more than two. If I was Oregon I would position myself for the SEC because unless the Big Ten goes to 24 teams (which they might with North Carolina, Virginia, and Duke) Oregon will be on the outside looking in.
I've speculated a similar outcome. It is noteworthy that the Cal Berkeley administration has been silent on UCLA's move - I haven't seen a single comment from the Cal Chancellor or Athletic Department about the move or criticizing it.
Poli Sci professors fail to comprehend reality. They exist in a nether world
reality. In the world of getting your ass kicked repeatedly, they simply read lesson plans then act like know-it-alls' prance. Perhaps some profs sojourn to actual games in the winters in Southern California, where it is in the eighties, while there are families in Minnesota together when its -10? The sole reason in favor of this head injury is that my mind defends in ice'-an-snow. The fact is fact, UCLA is running scared to the Pack 12. I do not foresee great stats when they battle Wisconsin or Michigan in December. drjpmxlaw64@gmail.com
UCLA's first 3 games this year: Bowling Green, Alabama State and South Alabama. What a gauntlet, lol. Dave M
That is why they left the PAC-12. Better stats are a guarantee. drjimxlaw64@gmail.con
It’s not UCLA’s fault Michigan backed out the last minute.
True, thank you, i had forgotten. However, the other two.........:)
A lot of bitter, butthurt people crying because they got dumped for a better conference. UCLA doesn’t owe Cal anything. Absolutely nothing. Cal’s athletic department is subsidized by taxpayers while UCLA’s is not. If these political hacks want to seriously go down this path then they open the door to legitimate attacks on their own policies that placed UCLA in the position to have to leave the conference. It was Newsom’s lockdowns and other misguided policies that forced UCLA into a full year without revenue worth $70 million. As a privately funded athletic department like UCLA that is economically not possible without drastic measures like changing conferences. Newsom and the Democrat hacks who control Sacramento should have thought about this stuff when they placed these restrictions. What they fail to understand however is that Southern California controls nearly enough of the state to pass constitutional amendments that would divest the UC regents authority over UCLA. The Bruins will secede from the UC regents if the regents continue to violate the UC charter. Being bitter and butthurt is not the solution to whatever problems your school faces.
UCLA's debt problems go far beyond Covid and Newsome's steps helped California emerge from Covid with a strong economy and a relatively low death rate compared to other states.
That strong economy has resulted in a flood of tax revenue that will benefit UCLA and other schools.
The Higher Ed system in California is well funded by the taxpayers, to the tune of $41 Billion this year. States like Florida only spend $100 billion or so on everything.
Schools like UCLA are also receiving a significant bump in state funding this year.
It is hardly Newsome's fault UnderArmour backed out of its deal and definitely not his fault that UCLA essentially refuses to provide the Athletic Department funding common in other schools.
It is also not his fault that UCLA has no control over the Rose Bowl, as opposed to having its own stadium which would generate significant revenue for the University.
It's also not his fault that UCLA donors don't step up to the plate and support their athletic programs.
Yeah Florida gets a lot more educational bang for the buck with 40% of the students at 13% of the cost. They also have a fully funded pension plan, shockingly lower taxes a balanced budget in surplus, much lower cost of living and much better infrastructure. If only California could get what it pays for (before the 4.5 billion deficit this year), think what a state it could be. They could actually just skip charging tuition at those universities, for one. They pay 15k per student. Instead students pay another 13k in the UC system (in state). That's before fees. How nice would it be to trim the fat and Make those universities that didn't saddle students with huge quantities of debt. Cal states are much cheaper, sure, and the universities of California aren't wildly expensive but few states throw around that sort of per student funding. Many have comparable or even cheaper tuition.
Interesting comment and yet, the U.S. Department of Labor reported that Florida, not California, is the most unaffordable state in the Country for its residents, in large part because Florida pays such low wages relative to its cost of living.
In fact, a recent Rasmussen U study confirmed the same thing. Florida has the Nation's lowest average salary, when adjusted for the state's actual cost of living. California's is not much better, but still 10% higher in terms of actual buying power.
Oh, and when you factor in those low salaries, suddenly the roughly $22,000 cost to attend the University of Florida for instate kids living in dorms doesn't appear so cheap-in fact it is not.
Despite all the chatter about Florida, it is an exceedingly poor state with a low per capita real GDP and low wages. Further, places like Miami now cost more to live than LA, without the 35% higher wages California offers.
Florida's per capita GDP is in the bottom 20 and California's is in the top 5.
California's natural death rate is substantially higher than that of California, and it is not just because Florida is the home to elderly. The death rate problem spans almost all age groups.
California is expensive and its tax structure is higher than Florida's. In return, you get things like a longer life span, a healthier life and a better lifestyle.
I wonder how you factor in the percentage of a states population that is retire and lives on pensions and investments instead of wages. My guess is that FL would have a high percentage of over 60 relative to CA.
This reminds me of the old saying regarding "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics". Florida is comparable to live in than the "lowest cost of living state" Mississippi. The only difference on the two states across the bulk of their area would be you pay less taxes in Florida. Florida is distorted by higher COL in a small amount of areas (South Florida, east of the glades, and south west Florida though north of the glades toward Tampa) and a rapidly expanding population. It's still fairly cheap to live in several of Florida's bigger cities... and that is a laughable prospect in California. In fact... finding an affordable house anywhere in California is laughable. Florida house prices are 40% lower, median rent, 40% lower, gas is 30% lower (and only in this bubble, it's much worse in California normally), food and energy prices are all significantly higher in California and wages are 30% lower on average (in Florida) but the wealth distribution (while bad in Florida) is basically the worst in California. We can talk about how an average wage in California blahblah... but the fact is it's less likely you get such a wage in California. A very quick check on median rent prices in Miami reveal it is still cheaper to live there than LA (food, gas, tax, energy all being lower as well). It's getting close... but it's still about 20% more and that's one of the closer areas of costs. Doesn't fully negate your point but it's not as bad as you suggest.
As to the students, yeah, it's better to be cheaper, basically always. You can go wherever you want afterward but toting around a smaller debt is better than low salaries in a state you aren't forced to stay in after you graduate. I used to have an acquaintance that graduated from UF and moved to San Fran to work. You can safely bet she preferred paying off the smaller student loans. Most students are funded in education through scholarships, family, loans and so forth. It's better on all fronts to spend less on the education outside of full-ride scholarships from the university... though even then you might have some other scholarships that go farther in a small Florida college town than they could ever hope to in the Bay Area.
I’ll take a UCLA degree over a Florida degree any day… and that’s coming from a Trojan. FL is a miserable cesspool.
Well, if you mean the university, it's actually nice enough. If you mean Gainesville, fair enough. If you mean the state, that's just nonsense hate unless you just hate the weather, which I can also understand (personal preference I share). It's a state. It's too big for classification based on political belief and considering its more libertarian and less likely to interfere in your life, it's a better state to live in than California in myriad ways. I've lived in both, and California is lovely, with better looking (though cold and filled with creatures that bite and sting) beaches. It has far more diversity in biomes (something Florida generally wins in) and is better for the naturalist minded. I saw a lot of wildlife, more than any state or country I've ever lived in and that's a long list relative to most people. I wasn't the type to go looking either.
That said, the thought of wanting to own a house is a pipe dream for 90% of residents not already in one for decades (as in many of those people couldn't afford one now). Florida is a much poorer state but it never feels that way to the majority. You can buy a nice house or mansion or whatever for a minority fraction of what it costs in California. The cost of living is so much lower, in fact, that an average wage in Florida (something much easier to attain in Florida too, far better wealth distribution) goes farther than the average wage in California. And the difference is over 20k! That said, the coastal weather in California is really great. In Florida only Miami area has great weather for as long as it remains above water.
Can't wait to hear the spin when UCLA has to cut 10 sports teams, half of them women's, because they couldn't go to the Big 10 and collect the extra cash to pay off the Athletic Department debt. . Stanford was going cut ELEVEN teams but got a reprieve. UCLA won't be so fortunate. Meanwhile, the Big 10 takes Stanford as a replacement and both the Victory Bell and The Big Game disappear from the schedule and the Pac 12 still crumbles. Well played, geniuses.
If Stanford cuts programs, that's on them. They have a $30 BILLION endowment and had a donor pay for their football stadium outright. Until Riley showed up, their football coach made 2x the next highest paid coach in the conference. If they value their programs, they can keep them.
Isn’t the endowment allocated to very specific causes chosen by the donor as opposed to a general slush fund that a University can use however they wish? I don’t think they could use money that is allocated to the computer science program to shore up women’s crew…
Jane Stanford gave a huge portion of the endowment. I imagine she (the wife of Leland Stanford) would not have foreseen college athletics becoming what they are to restrict it specifically. I'm sure she wouldn't want it spent on athletics though.
Another great point, can't just use it any way they want. Still, it's good to be the Card.
I don't know the specifics of their endowment, but it's likely that some of it is tabbed for specific uses and programs, and some is flexible. Regardless it's a massive endowment, and there is no doubt enough there to serve pretty much anything they want it to on the annual interest alone.
Great point, guilt probably changed their minds about the cuts, AFTER the public outcry.
People forget that the University of California is a single entity with 10 separate campuses governed by the Board of Regents which is picked by the governor and the current governor, Newsom, being the Chair. The Chancellors have some independence, but at the end of the day are under the governance of the Board of Regents. And the president of the Regents is only a 2 year office picked by the Regents. I think since the Regents manage all property of the campuses, they should charge the Big 10 100 million a year to use UCLA property.
Technically you are not exactly correct. From the UC Regents website …. “The Governor is officially the president of the Board of Regents; however, in practice the presiding officer of the Regents is the Chair of the Board, elected from among its body for a one-year term, beginning July 1. The current Chair is Regent Rich Leib and Vice Chair is Regent Gareth Elliott.”
John, you write a hell of a column! I am proud to be a subscriber.
There's nothing here for Newsom beyond just getting his name on the sports page. There's no "winning" and the regents have much bigger problems to tackle than sports at UCLA. His people need to be smarter than this.
LA has an Olympics coming in just over five years. Better for Newsom to spend political capital at that.
If UCLA doesn;t go, does this save PAC12?
Sure it will bring back some of the LA market, but it leads to two questions:
1. Would USC go it alone? (I assume yes)
2. Does that make B1G poach another PAC12 school? Oregon?
I would assume losing Oregon would be worse for Pac12 than UCLA. Sure revenue with UCLA is better, but credibility of strength of program would be devastating.
The Pac-12 pulls in Notre Dame to take USC's spot. Hah hah. In all seriousness, I don't think Oregon helps their TV deal in any large way, but they'd have to anchor USC to another school on the Left Coast it would seem.
NOTRE DAME, where my sister and father attended, would love the PAC. Winter weekends in CA, wahoo!!! drjpmxlaw64@gmail.com
As a native Californian and an Oregon Alum, it sickens me to watch the demise of a conference I grew up watching and then being a part of. All for what? Greed, media networks, and billionaires. It’s so gross. ZERO thought was given to the fans and the people who have supported the PAC-12. No, it’s all about getting bigger, but not better. The chase for the almighty buck by institutions that largely don’t even need the dollars because most of the schools in the Big 10 and the PAC-12 have HUGE endowments. College football has now been ruined forever in my mind. So sad. Ted B., New York, NY
Go Bruins! I am not sure you should!?!
The best move for the UC Regents would be to require the Big Ten to take in Berkeley as well as UCLA, so the Bears could get their own share of B1G athletic revenues. If Stanford is seen as a cinch to switch leagues (in the event Notre Dame joins), why shouldn't its Big Game rival do likewise? And Big Ten presidents would certainly like to share in Berkeley's substantial research $$$$.
As reported in the LA Time today (July 21) and as expected Newsom has no way to block UCLA's move to the Big Ten....
"As governor, Newsom has no authority to squelch the deal because the UC system is constitutionally autonomous. As a regent, he could ask his board colleagues to consider directives to UCLA about the deal — to explain it in a public meeting, for instance, or to propose ways to mitigate the financial fallout on UC Berkeley. The UC Office of the President delegated authority in 1991 [Policy DA 1058] to campus chancellors to execute their own contracts, including intercollegiate athletic agreements.
...UC President Michael V. Drake knew about UCLA’s conversations with Big Ten officials. But regents were not consulted then and only a “handful” were notified just before the decision was announced and told to keep it confidential, said Board of Regents Chair Richard Leib. UCLA made the decision “under broad-based delegated authority which didn’t necessarily anticipate this type of action,” Leib said.
While any discussions would necessarily need to be closely guarded, given the sensitivity of negotiations, Newsom would like to have seen a process that included a meeting with regents, potentially in closed session, where UCLA could have outlined the proposed deal, explained the direct benefit to student-athletes, and solicited ideas on how to mitigate the harm to UC Berkeley and other conference members, [Newson aid] Chida said.
Ideas raised have included requiring UCLA to pay UC Berkeley a Pac-12 “exit fee” or share the TV revenue with its sister campus — conditions that the regents could potentially impose.
...Student Regent Marlenee Blas Pedral, a UC Berkeley law student, said the board wanted more transparency and communication from UCLA. She said she found out about the Pac-12 exit in the media.
...“I think UCLA should definitely do something to help mitigate some of the potential harm that’s going to come out of this,” she said, adding that she was not yet “100% sure” what that should be."
They might (and should) punish them, but I can't see them forcing ucla to stay. I think they should make it a law that UCLA and Cal have to be in the same conference where possible. Guess that would be strange since no one wants the other uc schools teams in the pac.
Seriously, guys, Newsome only cares about how much money and/or power he can gain. Given the steady implosion of California with entrepreneurs snd giant corporations alike heading for liberty in Texas, Newsome isn't going to bitch about UCLA picking up an incrementsl $50 to $80 million by joining yhe BIG.
You will be Surprise what UCLA can do.I don't think the Big10 are that tough with the exception of OSU and Pen State and occasionally MSU.I think everyone are miss judging how hard is to win in the PAC12 and give a lot of credit to the BIG12 ,I know they are known for being tough but,who have made it to the College Playoff other than OSU? PAC12 have two team that made it and one made it to the final..help me out if I am wrong .
The most likely resolution will be both sides agree that UCLA will vouch for UC Berkeley’s eventual admission into the Big Ten as soon as the conference decides to expand. Once Notre Dame makes a decision to join the Big Ten, they will also expand to Stanford, Berkeley, and Washington. This should happen within a few years, no more than two. If I was Oregon I would position myself for the SEC because unless the Big Ten goes to 24 teams (which they might with North Carolina, Virginia, and Duke) Oregon will be on the outside looking in.
I've speculated a similar outcome. It is noteworthy that the Cal Berkeley administration has been silent on UCLA's move - I haven't seen a single comment from the Cal Chancellor or Athletic Department about the move or criticizing it.
John, July 18, 2022
Poli Sci professors fail to comprehend reality. They exist in a nether world
reality. In the world of getting your ass kicked repeatedly, they simply read lesson plans then act like know-it-alls' prance. Perhaps some profs sojourn to actual games in the winters in Southern California, where it is in the eighties, while there are families in Minnesota together when its -10? The sole reason in favor of this head injury is that my mind defends in ice'-an-snow. The fact is fact, UCLA is running scared to the Pack 12. I do not foresee great stats when they battle Wisconsin or Michigan in December. drjpmxlaw64@gmail.com