UC Regents to address UCLA to the Big Ten move, particularly its financial impact on Cal

Is there a legal recourse to blocking UCLA's Big Ten move?

Cal Athletics @CalAthletics

Congrats to our 1️⃣5️⃣5️⃣ student-athletes named to the 2022 @pac12 Spring Academic Honor Roll! 📚 🗞️ » calbea.rs/3c4b3XI #GoBears

The University of California Board of Regents will be discussing UCLA’s move to the Big Ten on Thursday, July 21. Jon Wilner first broke the news, with the possibility of lawsuits on the horizon.

Can the regents prevent UCLA from departing the Pac-12, along with USC, in the summer of 2024?

Or are the regents themselves facing litigation for allowing the Bruins to leave the conference that has been their home for more than a century?

This is likely with regards to the downstream impacts that UCLA’s departure to the Big Ten will have on the flagship school in the conference—UC Berkeley, home to the California Golden Bears.

It doesn’t really mean that UCLA is in any danger of its Big Ten move getting blocked. The UC Regents has gone on record several times that they have no such power.

A spokesperson for the UC Office of the President said the regents had no authority to prevent UCLA’s move, which became official June 30:

“There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President.”

However, there is a lot more complexity the Regents probably didn’t further evaluate among first glance, and very messy state and political litigation that could be in the works if this deal goes as planned.

(It should be currently noted that UC System president Michael Drake is a Stanford grad, and was the president at Ohio State from 2014-20. There is only one UC Berkeley graduate among the 14 appointed regents.)

Namely, UCLA’s gain is Cal’s loss. A financial boon for the Bruins in Westwood cascades into a financial boondogle. More from Wilner’s article about the lack of leadership between Cal and Regents regarding the intentions of USC and UCLA.

A source close to Cal athletics said chancellor Carol Christ was “blindsided” by the news of UCLA’s departure.

Largely because their athletic department supports 30 sports teams — one of the highest totals in the country — the Bears typically run a significant deficit. Only football and men’s basketball are profitable.

In fact, the athletic department receives approximately $25 million annually from central campus to fund operations.

From Cal’s side, it was the most stunning aspect of the news the past two weeks. More from ESPN.

There was more surprise, according to sources, that UCLA was able to depart considering its close relationship with Cal as part of the University of California system. Cal and UCLA are the highest-profile schools in the system, and both regularly rank among the nation's best public universities.

"The mystery to me is how the regents allowed UCLA to go and leave Cal ... wounded," one source said. "This is not good for Cal or anybody else in the Pac-10."

Here is UCLA’s response to how the Regents were informed:

“UCLA leadership informed President Drake that discussions between UCLA and the Big Ten were occurring but he was not involved at all in those discussions or in any negotiations. UCLA remains best positioned to answer your questions as decisions related to athletics are formulated and executed at the campus-level.”

Regardless of the impact for UCLA on the campus-level, it’s a public institution for the state of California, and its departure from the Pac-12 has the potential to damage THE public institution in the state up north.

Any revenues or benefits the Bruins enjoy and could reap for the UC system get cancelled out by the significant damage the athletic department would face if they were stuck in a diminished Pac-10 conference facing significant revenue cuts. Cal has an enormous stadium debt to forgive and repayments are hitting overdrive in the coming decades.

Without USC and UCLA providing a link to the massive Los Angeles media market, the Pac-12’s revenue could be chopped by 40-to-50 percent starting in the 2024-25 academic year.

As a result, the Bears could experience a revenue reduction of at least $10 million annually, thereby jeopardizing their ability to support 28 Olympic and women’s sports (none of them are profitable).

The flagship university of the state of the West facing nine figure debt can become a major state political problem if things aren’t ironed out quickly. I imagine the Regents want to explore all options for a satisfactory solution before this issue moves past the university stage and into the public eye.

John Canzano discussed how litigation could come into play with former Washington state senator Mike Baumgartner, particularly with regards to how Cal stadium debt gets impacted by the move.

“However, the private bond holders of Cal University debt might have a legal case if the UCLA decision effects their credit worthiness and/or bond value,” he said. “Here in Washington, we had several instances of our Supreme Court prohibiting policy changes due to impact on bond holders.”

Can this all be avoided with a Big Ten invite to Cal? It’s the only solution that solves these matters politically without a ton of potential litigation.

One can only hope an impressive case is met.