Hello Showtime. You make an informative argument that I am just becoming aware of. As I consider this matter I wonder if the Regents have more leverage that you are thinking? UCLA is attractive to the BIG TEN because it is a prominent brand. (The last 20 years of athletic results certainly are not the reason. UCLA has been medioc…
Hello Showtime. You make an informative argument that I am just becoming aware of. As I consider this matter I wonder if the Regents have more leverage that you are thinking? UCLA is attractive to the BIG TEN because it is a prominent brand. (The last 20 years of athletic results certainly are not the reason. UCLA has been mediocre.) It is the location in Los Angeles together with the UCLA brand which makes UCLA attractive to the BIG TEN. This leads me to wonder who owns the UCLA brand? If the University of California is the owner of this brand (which would make sense to me but may not be legally accurate) -- can't the UC Regents decide that this brand has become very valuable and decide that they will charge a royalty for use of the brand beginning in 2024? OR Given that the UC Regents provided autonomy to the campuses in 1991 -- can't the UC Regents decide that, from this day foreward, conference agreements of this nature must be approved by the Regents? This would not stop UCLA from joining the BIG TEN in 2024. However the Regents could let it be known now that the Regents will not approve any renewal/extension of the initial term of the agreement. If that context existed, would UCLA and the BIG TEN choose to move forward with a partnership that is known to be temporary in nature? All of this fascinates me. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Hello Showtime. You make an informative argument that I am just becoming aware of. As I consider this matter I wonder if the Regents have more leverage that you are thinking? UCLA is attractive to the BIG TEN because it is a prominent brand. (The last 20 years of athletic results certainly are not the reason. UCLA has been mediocre.) It is the location in Los Angeles together with the UCLA brand which makes UCLA attractive to the BIG TEN. This leads me to wonder who owns the UCLA brand? If the University of California is the owner of this brand (which would make sense to me but may not be legally accurate) -- can't the UC Regents decide that this brand has become very valuable and decide that they will charge a royalty for use of the brand beginning in 2024? OR Given that the UC Regents provided autonomy to the campuses in 1991 -- can't the UC Regents decide that, from this day foreward, conference agreements of this nature must be approved by the Regents? This would not stop UCLA from joining the BIG TEN in 2024. However the Regents could let it be known now that the Regents will not approve any renewal/extension of the initial term of the agreement. If that context existed, would UCLA and the BIG TEN choose to move forward with a partnership that is known to be temporary in nature? All of this fascinates me. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.