(07-12-2022 01:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 12:46 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  If the UC Regents keep UCLA at home, ND is really on Big Ten speed dial.

To be sure, I don't think UCLA being blocked from joining the Big Ten would help drawing ND at all. Honestly, the less Midwestern that the Big Ten is, the better it is for enticing ND. USC is obviously ND's top rival, but UCLA is definitely a big-time plus. Note that ND would consider UCLA to be a basketball rival, too. They actually played 2 games per year (home-and-home) against each other through the 1970s and 1980s even though they were all non-conference games, which is quite rare.

The UC system won't stop them and they can whine and cry to the B1G about adding Cal but really they're behind Stanford, Oregon, Washington. If you think about it since Utah, Colorado are also AAU why would they want Cal over them? Especially if they picked Stanford, they got the Bay covered. Even Az who sucks would bring them a new market over doubling down on the Bay.

(07-12-2022 01:31 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Nearly two weeks later?

So Cal is starting to get the sense they need to apply some arm twisting to get the invite they've been patiently waiting for.

The BIG is looking at nearly a step-change in the TV rights, and potentially into a budget P1. No worse than equal to SEC. No better time to sneak in Cal and Stanford, which at another time transparently costs the BIG schools.

Maybe I'm too collegial, but I see the BIG presidents willing to spend a little of their raise to have Stanford and Berkeley as part of the Big 10 brand. Then UVa and maybe a couple other ACC schools. Adding ND at the same time, and after the mountain schools "kill" the PAC, preferred though.

Agreed. Big Ten Connection to Cali is strong. When Ohio State played @ Cal about 10 years ago, their stadium was sold out and 80%+ Scarlet.

It's become clear the SEC is the power houses that don't care so much about academics while the Big Ten are the remaining powers that do care about academics even though they play no part in athletics IMO these days. Along with the general north/south divide.

I'll be surprised if Cal and Stanford don't get an invite in the future to lock down all of Cali. Stanford when ND goes. Cal while I'd have ahead of Stanford maybe relying on an odd number of teams after Oregon/Washington/Power ACC teams settle out.

(07-12-2022 12:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 12:30 PM)superdeluxe Wrote:  UCLA being prevented to move would be a god send for the pac-12. It means they still have some form of the SoCal market.

Would also give some leverage in discussions with the B12 and ACC.

Edit: although I still doubt it. Most I can see is some sort of kickback to the UC system

I've been generally a defender of the Pac-12's position in these realignment scenarios.

However, I find it much more likely that if the UC Board of Regents truly makes things difficult that the Big Ten will simply invite Cal and Stanford to come along than for UCLA to somehow stay in the Pac-12. That would be quite a bit worse for the Pac-12 in rebuilding/repositioning itself.

I expect this could just be part of it. Can Cal strong-arm a move to the B1G by threatening to keep UCLA out? I'm not sure if that holds up in court but I guess UCB is desperate.

Good. I hope this ends that both UCLA and USC get uninvited to the Big 10. They don't belond in that conference in the first place. I bet California winds up as a winner by keeping UCLA home where they belong.

(07-12-2022 01:37 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 12:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 12:30 PM)superdeluxe Wrote:  UCLA being prevented to move would be a god send for the pac-12. It means they still have some form of the SoCal market.

Would also give some leverage in discussions with the B12 and ACC.

Edit: although I still doubt it. Most I can see is some sort of kickback to the UC system

I've been generally a defender of the Pac-12's position in these realignment scenarios.

However, I find it much more likely that if the UC Board of Regents truly makes things difficult that the Big Ten will simply invite Cal and Stanford to come along than for UCLA to somehow stay in the Pac-12. That would be quite a bit worse for the Pac-12 in rebuilding/repositioning itself.

What do Cal and Stanford bring to the B1G? Cal is in big time debt. Stanford is still working on getting out of debt which almost shredded the athletic offerings. UCLA need to move or they will be slashing sports based on over $100 million in debt. To be honest, the B1G got the only true money maker in CA, USC who pulled UCLA along as a partner.

None of that really matters in the long run. This is a 20/30/40/50/100-year conference decision for the Big Ten.

The Big Ten presidents truly do look at themselves as an elite group a la the Ivy League.

There's pretty much no better academic-based expansion better than Cal and Stanford. That in and of itself is quite meaningful.

The fact that they're directly located in the major market of the Bay Area (which is also the home of so many of the tech players that are going to be determining the future economics of sports) is even better regardless of academics.

Now, Cal and Stanford might not get added because we are probably in the stage of conference realignment where nothing less than an unambiguous mega-brand expansion works financially for the Big Ten (or SEC, for that matter). So, I'm not saying that the Big Ten would just add schools based on academics, but I also don't want to hear anyone talk about the league adding other non-Notre Dame schools based on "it's a great academic school with a great market" while Cal and Stanford are still sitting there.

I'm *pretty sure* this isn't actually about UC's system trying to sue to prevent UCLA from leaving.

California is the flagship school, and UCLA is the little brother to them. There is no way in hell UCLA gets into the Big 10 without them. California could sue the Big 10 for damages the school and the conference, and I do not think the Big 10 wants to go into court, and dropped the idea of adding UCLA and USC.

(07-12-2022 01:37 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 12:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 12:30 PM)superdeluxe Wrote:  UCLA being prevented to move would be a god send for the pac-12. It means they still have some form of the SoCal market.

Would also give some leverage in discussions with the B12 and ACC.

Edit: although I still doubt it. Most I can see is some sort of kickback to the UC system

I've been generally a defender of the Pac-12's position in these realignment scenarios.

However, I find it much more likely that if the UC Board of Regents truly makes things difficult that the Big Ten will simply invite Cal and Stanford to come along than for UCLA to somehow stay in the Pac-12. That would be quite a bit worse for the Pac-12 in rebuilding/repositioning itself.

What do Cal and Stanford bring to the B1G? Cal is in big time debt. Stanford is still working on getting out of debt which almost shredded the athletic offerings. UCLA need to move or they will be slashing sports based on over $100 million in debt. To be honest, the B1G got the only true money maker in CA, USC who pulled UCLA along as a partner.

Stability in the West, new inventory, the *entire* state of California, and strong academic prestige...and lots of national championships in a bunch of Olympic sports.

With all four California PAC schools, the Big Ten legitimately adds the entire 40 million population and all 15 million TV households to their market.

With a core schedule of UCLA, Stanford, and Cal, USC women's volleyball and soccer only has to 2 or 3 Midwest or Eastern road trips each season. The Big Ten becomes a *desirable* home for Olympic sports, not just football. That keeps the Big Ten entrenched in California and keeps the PAC 12 (and SEC) out. Check mate.

And, the Big Ten could legitimately make the Rose Bowl its conference championship game.

(07-12-2022 01:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  California is the flagship school, and UCLA is the little brother to them. There is no way in hell UCLA gets into the Big 10 without them. California could sue the Big 10 for damages the school and the conference, and I do not think the Big 10 wants to go into court, and dropped the idea of adding UCLA and USC.

Please explain the grounds for a suit.

(07-12-2022 01:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  California is the flagship school, and UCLA is the little brother to them. There is no way in hell UCLA gets into the Big 10 without them. California could sue the Big 10 for damages the school and the conference, and I do not think the Big 10 wants to go into court, and dropped the idea of adding UCLA and USC.

No one here views Cal as the better school unless they go to Cal. Just like no one views SJSU(flagship) as the best CSU.

(07-12-2022 12:30 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It would be the most California thing ever for the UC system to keep UCLA from leaving the PAC because other California universities can’t tag along. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

California gonna California

The state of Virginia forced UVA to vote for Virginia Tech into the ACC. At one point, the State of North Carolina had to take legislative action for NC State and UNC to start scheduling ECU again in football.

It's not really a "California" problem. States do step in, and sometimes it works.

(07-12-2022 01:56 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 01:37 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 12:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 12:30 PM)superdeluxe Wrote:  UCLA being prevented to move would be a god send for the pac-12. It means they still have some form of the SoCal market.

Would also give some leverage in discussions with the B12 and ACC.

Edit: although I still doubt it. Most I can see is some sort of kickback to the UC system

I've been generally a defender of the Pac-12's position in these realignment scenarios.

However, I find it much more likely that if the UC Board of Regents truly makes things difficult that the Big Ten will simply invite Cal and Stanford to come along than for UCLA to somehow stay in the Pac-12. That would be quite a bit worse for the Pac-12 in rebuilding/repositioning itself.

What do Cal and Stanford bring to the B1G? Cal is in big time debt. Stanford is still working on getting out of debt which almost shredded the athletic offerings. UCLA need to move or they will be slashing sports based on over $100 million in debt. To be honest, the B1G got the only true money maker in CA, USC who pulled UCLA along as a partner.

Stability in the West, new inventory, the *entire* state of California, and strong academic prestige...and lots of national championships in a bunch of Olympic sports.

With all four California PAC schools, the Big Ten legitimately adds the entire 40 million population and all 15 million TV households to their market.

With a core schedule of UCLA, Stanford, and Cal, USC women's volleyball and soccer only has to 2 or 3 Midwest or Eastern road trips each season. The Big Ten becomes a *desirable* home for Olympic sports, not just football. That keeps the Big Ten entrenched in California and keeps the PAC 12 (and SEC) out. Check mate.

And, the Big Ten could legitimately make the Rose Bowl its conference championship game.

If the value was so great, why did Cal and Stanford not get an invite with USC and UCLA? How many of those 15,000,000 tv households watch Cal and Stanford football? The SEC could take a FSU and get more money based on viewer value than adding the Bay area. Heck, OK State likely adds more value. The SEC does not care about getting into California.

And the B1G don't care about being "desirable" for Olympic sports. The contract they care about, FOOTBALL.

(07-12-2022 01:56 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 01:37 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 12:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 12:30 PM)superdeluxe Wrote:  UCLA being prevented to move would be a god send for the pac-12. It means they still have some form of the SoCal market.

Would also give some leverage in discussions with the B12 and ACC.

Edit: although I still doubt it. Most I can see is some sort of kickback to the UC system

I've been generally a defender of the Pac-12's position in these realignment scenarios.

However, I find it much more likely that if the UC Board of Regents truly makes things difficult that the Big Ten will simply invite Cal and Stanford to come along than for UCLA to somehow stay in the Pac-12. That would be quite a bit worse for the Pac-12 in rebuilding/repositioning itself.

What do Cal and Stanford bring to the B1G? Cal is in big time debt. Stanford is still working on getting out of debt which almost shredded the athletic offerings. UCLA need to move or they will be slashing sports based on over $100 million in debt. To be honest, the B1G got the only true money maker in CA, USC who pulled UCLA along as a partner.

Stability in the West, new inventory, the *entire* state of California, and strong academic prestige...and lots of national championships in a bunch of Olympic sports.

With all four California PAC schools, the Big Ten legitimately adds the entire 40 million population and all 15 million TV households to their market.

With a core schedule of UCLA, Stanford, and Cal, USC women's volleyball and soccer only has to 2 or 3 Midwest or Eastern road trips each season. The Big Ten becomes a *desirable* home for Olympic sports, not just football. That keeps the Big Ten entrenched in California and keeps the PAC 12 (and SEC) out. Check mate.

And, the Big Ten could legitimately make the Rose Bowl its conference championship game.

If the value was so great, why did Cal and Stanford not get an invite with USC and UCLA? How many of those 15,000,000 tv households watch Cal and Stanford football? The SEC could take a FSU and get more money based on viewer value than adding the Bay area. Heck, OK State likely adds more value. The SEC does not care about getting into California.

And the B1G don't care about being "desirable" for Olympic sports. The contract they care about, FOOTBALL.

$445M in bonds for Cal, backed by the UC regents. The UC system would be on the hook if Cal defaults on that. Cal has been paying down, but a couple decades to go.

BTW, most of what Cal did was retrofit memorial stadium to earthquake standards after Loma Prieta. They didn't do much to enhance revenue.

This would be the biggest concern of the regents, the financial situation for Cal. I do not think it's beneficial to hold UCLA out, because Stanford would simply step in their place and both UC schools would be down revenue, UCLA over $50M per year.

(07-12-2022 02:14 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  $445M in bonds for Cal, backed by the UC regents. The UC system would be on the hook if Cal defaults on that. Cal has been paying down, but a couple decades to go.

BTW, most of what Cal did was retrofit memorial stadium to earthquake standards after Loma Prieta. They didn't do much to enhance revenue.

This would be the biggest concern of the regents, the financial situation for Cal. I do not think it's beneficial to hold UCLA out, because Stanford would simply step in their place and both UC schools would be down revenue, UCLA over $50M per year.

Yes, that's the bottom line.

Ultimately, the UC regents have no bearing on USC. The Trojans are gone. Either UCLA goes with them or someone else (likely Stanford) takes their place and then both UC schools are screwed instead of just one of them.

(07-12-2022 02:10 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 12:30 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It would be the most California thing ever for the UC system to keep UCLA from leaving the PAC because other California universities can’t tag along. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

California gonna California

The state of Virginia forced UVA to vote for Virginia Tech into the ACC. At one point, the State of North Carolina had to take legislative action for NC State and UNC to start scheduling ECU again in football.

It's not really a "California" problem. States do step in, and sometimes it works.

Correct. To spin this as a "California" issue is off the mark. Even Texas Tech tried to make noise about UT leaving.

(07-12-2022 02:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-12-2022 02:14 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  $445M in bonds for Cal, backed by the UC regents. The UC system would be on the hook if Cal defaults on that. Cal has been paying down, but a couple decades to go.

BTW, most of what Cal did was retrofit memorial stadium to earthquake standards after Loma Prieta. They didn't do much to enhance revenue.

This would be the biggest concern of the regents, the financial situation for Cal. I do not think it's beneficial to hold UCLA out, because Stanford would simply step in their place and both UC schools would be down revenue, UCLA over $50M per year.

Yes, that's the bottom line.

Ultimately, the UC regents have no bearing on USC. The Trojans are gone. Either UCLA goes with them or someone else (likely Stanford) takes their place and then both UC schools are screwed instead of just one of them.

Plus, in event of future expansion, Cal and Stanford would still have some cachet, due to location and academics for a conference like the B1G. You really want to burn that bridge?

It's time someone put a end to public schools acting like their private schools. There their for one purpose one purpose only to serve and educate the people of their state. Not running half way aross the country to serve there purient interest in sports.

How did UCLA even get permission to talk with the Big Ten without going through the UC Regents in the first place? The idea of Berkeley being left in the dark here seems ridiculous.

(07-12-2022 02:41 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  It's time someone put a end to public schools acting like their private schools. There their for one purpose one purpose only to serve and educate the people of their state. Not running half way aross the country to serve there purient interest in sports.

If states would actually fund those public schools at a level so that they wouldn't have to essentially raise outside sources of money as if they were private schools, I'd take that argument seriously. Unfortunately, one thing that virtually all states have in common (whether red or blue) seems to be totally underfunding public universities and then hypocritically criticize those same public universities from maximizing other sources of revenue where they can (whether it's from sports, out-of-state students, international students, etc.). I have zero issue with any university - public or private - from completely maximizing its revenue in this environment. Absolutely none.