This entire take is wishful thinking that will never come to pass with regard to any way to "make Cal whole". There is no legal basis to stop the move and frankly no claim to any lost revenue from actions taken where all contractual obligations were met. Will the new Pac-10 deal after 2024 be worse? It will be if the conference commissioner or the remaining member schools sit back and do nothing.
If the UC regents have a responsibility to Cal, what of the other UC schools with athletic programs? Do they have a claim too? By the above logic UC Davis will have the same contractual relationship as Cal to UCLA after 2024 (which is none except having the two letters U and C in their school name) and should they be entitled to some UCLA Big 10 money? It's ridiculous.
Nope. Even if a campus could sue another (highly unlikely since they share the same office of the general counsel), there is no legal basis to keep UCLA from switching conferences. Other third parties might be able to sue, but not likely. The "litigation" reference is a technicality so the Regents can discuss the issue in closed session, without nosy reporters listening in.
The legal stuff is beyond my expertise but it will be fun to eat popcorn and watch from the sidelines. There were many proclamations of dramatic news in the Pac12 in the wake of the departures last week, and there has been virtually nothing. Crickets, of any real news. I'm fascinated by what this means for Cal football players, and coaches. What will this season and next be like? Will LA players not want to attend Cal or Oregon or WA because they won't play in front of their friends and family in LA anymore? Or more the opposite with them not wanting to play in front of bumblefrick fans back East and preferring to stay West Coast based? We hear Pac12 commish is "kicking ass", but what the heck does that mean? Whole lot of no news right now.
The regents have an equal duty to all member institutions- it will be interesting to see a timeline of when Drake knew about UCLA discussions and did not share info with other member institution that could be financially hurt by the UCLA action.
Congrats, Avi. This article is nonsense. All it does is rattle people's cages without doing anything other than throw around speculation. There's not recitation of what happens next, what methods of recourse exist (legal or otherwise), or even any sort of overtures from the Big 12, ACC, or any schools looking to join the Pac-12 and what that might mean. No meaningful analysis. Only words on a page.
You'd think that an article might offer some sort of clarity or enlightenment around an issue of some controversy. No such luck. Things are just as murky as they were before I started reading this article.
UCLA's leaving the Pac-12 for the Big Ten leaves Cal (and other Pac-12 institutions) with a boatload of uncertainty for 2024 and beyond.
Is there any hint at a solution here? Nope.
Is there any indication that UCLA might help out Cal? Nope.
Are people upset? Yes.
Does this article have any idea what Chancellor Christ and AD Knowlton are up to? NO.
Since this article was published (July 13) I've seen Gavin Newsom rattle his own sabre as an ex-officio member of the Board of Regents. But it's absolutely nothing more than that as far as anyone can tell. There's no apparent legal consequences for UCLA and there's no apparent appetite from other regents to impose any sort of penalty or other arrangement.
Where do I go to reclaim my lost 30 minutes on the article and this comment?
I’m a UCLA alum, and my parents went to Cal (and are season ticket holders to boot). The thing that gets me about this entire situation is that Cal made an absolutely terrible decision to take out debt for a new athletic center when they financed the Memorial Stadium retrofit. It’s pretty straightforward as to why the stadium needed to be upgraded, but the athletic center is the real issue here (I believe overall financing was $450m, and athletic center was $130ish?).
What I find sad and unacceptable is that the university had to come in and take on about half the overall debt; great that the athletic department has some overall breathing room, given the impossibility being able to pay off the debt in full on football and basketball revenues alone, but the university’s broader involvement in the debt repayments comes at the expense of academic programs, plus the general student population now sees higher tuition fees.
Now, onto what is likely going to be my least popular opinion on this thread - we need to end college revenue sports. I loved UCLA football and basketball when I was in school, but the more I think about college revenue sports, the more absurd it feels. College football and basketball are essentially semi-pro entities that borrow a given school’s brand, budget, and facilities in order to exist, and there is hardly a focus on academics for the kids who play. I am a Niners, Warriors, and A’s fan (ugh), and I have plenty of sports to watch and root for — I do not need college athletics as a pastime. Given how athletic departments are becoming a strain on the general funds (it’s a problem at UCLA too), I’d like to throw out hypotheticals: would you rather see Cal in the Rose Bowl or Cal enabling 1,000 incremental underprivileged kids per year climb the socioeconomic ladder and receive a top-notch Berkeley education? Cal winning the NCAA tourney, or Cal research leading to a breakthrough in cancer care?
Anyways, not looking for a fight here, just hoping that we gain some perspective and demand that our respective universities reset their missions to focus solely on academic excellence.
First of all, UCLA is now the premiere campus within the University of California both academically and athletically. Second of all, all of these lawsuits amount to nothing, because there is no actual or implied contractual requirement that UCLA remain in the Pac 12 in perpetuity.
I attended a Big Ten school in the '80s. Back then the players could take a bus to many of the away games. And if they played an early game on Saturday, they'd back on campus that night.
This is a whole lot of nothing and just political posturing. Ucla will be allowed to go to the Big10 and the Regents will not be able to force the Big10 to take Cal. Perhaps the Regents can work something out between UCLA and Cal where UCLA has to pay a portion of our debt until it is paid off but that is probably the best and most optimistic outcome for us.
Time to lawyer up. Buckle the chinstrap. Cal might be able to claim tortious interference in this case.
Can the Regents transfer money from UCLA to Cal to offset the losses?
This entire take is wishful thinking that will never come to pass with regard to any way to "make Cal whole". There is no legal basis to stop the move and frankly no claim to any lost revenue from actions taken where all contractual obligations were met. Will the new Pac-10 deal after 2024 be worse? It will be if the conference commissioner or the remaining member schools sit back and do nothing.
If the UC regents have a responsibility to Cal, what of the other UC schools with athletic programs? Do they have a claim too? By the above logic UC Davis will have the same contractual relationship as Cal to UCLA after 2024 (which is none except having the two letters U and C in their school name) and should they be entitled to some UCLA Big 10 money? It's ridiculous.
Nope. Even if a campus could sue another (highly unlikely since they share the same office of the general counsel), there is no legal basis to keep UCLA from switching conferences. Other third parties might be able to sue, but not likely. The "litigation" reference is a technicality so the Regents can discuss the issue in closed session, without nosy reporters listening in.
The legal stuff is beyond my expertise but it will be fun to eat popcorn and watch from the sidelines. There were many proclamations of dramatic news in the Pac12 in the wake of the departures last week, and there has been virtually nothing. Crickets, of any real news. I'm fascinated by what this means for Cal football players, and coaches. What will this season and next be like? Will LA players not want to attend Cal or Oregon or WA because they won't play in front of their friends and family in LA anymore? Or more the opposite with them not wanting to play in front of bumblefrick fans back East and preferring to stay West Coast based? We hear Pac12 commish is "kicking ass", but what the heck does that mean? Whole lot of no news right now.
Christ was “blindsided” eh? What does she do all day then?
The regents have an equal duty to all member institutions- it will be interesting to see a timeline of when Drake knew about UCLA discussions and did not share info with other member institution that could be financially hurt by the UCLA action.
Congrats, Avi. This article is nonsense. All it does is rattle people's cages without doing anything other than throw around speculation. There's not recitation of what happens next, what methods of recourse exist (legal or otherwise), or even any sort of overtures from the Big 12, ACC, or any schools looking to join the Pac-12 and what that might mean. No meaningful analysis. Only words on a page.
You'd think that an article might offer some sort of clarity or enlightenment around an issue of some controversy. No such luck. Things are just as murky as they were before I started reading this article.
UCLA's leaving the Pac-12 for the Big Ten leaves Cal (and other Pac-12 institutions) with a boatload of uncertainty for 2024 and beyond.
Is there any hint at a solution here? Nope.
Is there any indication that UCLA might help out Cal? Nope.
Are people upset? Yes.
Does this article have any idea what Chancellor Christ and AD Knowlton are up to? NO.
Since this article was published (July 13) I've seen Gavin Newsom rattle his own sabre as an ex-officio member of the Board of Regents. But it's absolutely nothing more than that as far as anyone can tell. There's no apparent legal consequences for UCLA and there's no apparent appetite from other regents to impose any sort of penalty or other arrangement.
Where do I go to reclaim my lost 30 minutes on the article and this comment?
I’m a UCLA alum, and my parents went to Cal (and are season ticket holders to boot). The thing that gets me about this entire situation is that Cal made an absolutely terrible decision to take out debt for a new athletic center when they financed the Memorial Stadium retrofit. It’s pretty straightforward as to why the stadium needed to be upgraded, but the athletic center is the real issue here (I believe overall financing was $450m, and athletic center was $130ish?).
What I find sad and unacceptable is that the university had to come in and take on about half the overall debt; great that the athletic department has some overall breathing room, given the impossibility being able to pay off the debt in full on football and basketball revenues alone, but the university’s broader involvement in the debt repayments comes at the expense of academic programs, plus the general student population now sees higher tuition fees.
Now, onto what is likely going to be my least popular opinion on this thread - we need to end college revenue sports. I loved UCLA football and basketball when I was in school, but the more I think about college revenue sports, the more absurd it feels. College football and basketball are essentially semi-pro entities that borrow a given school’s brand, budget, and facilities in order to exist, and there is hardly a focus on academics for the kids who play. I am a Niners, Warriors, and A’s fan (ugh), and I have plenty of sports to watch and root for — I do not need college athletics as a pastime. Given how athletic departments are becoming a strain on the general funds (it’s a problem at UCLA too), I’d like to throw out hypotheticals: would you rather see Cal in the Rose Bowl or Cal enabling 1,000 incremental underprivileged kids per year climb the socioeconomic ladder and receive a top-notch Berkeley education? Cal winning the NCAA tourney, or Cal research leading to a breakthrough in cancer care?
Anyways, not looking for a fight here, just hoping that we gain some perspective and demand that our respective universities reset their missions to focus solely on academic excellence.
First of all, UCLA is now the premiere campus within the University of California both academically and athletically. Second of all, all of these lawsuits amount to nothing, because there is no actual or implied contractual requirement that UCLA remain in the Pac 12 in perpetuity.
I attended a Big Ten school in the '80s. Back then the players could take a bus to many of the away games. And if they played an early game on Saturday, they'd back on campus that night.
This is a whole lot of nothing and just political posturing. Ucla will be allowed to go to the Big10 and the Regents will not be able to force the Big10 to take Cal. Perhaps the Regents can work something out between UCLA and Cal where UCLA has to pay a portion of our debt until it is paid off but that is probably the best and most optimistic outcome for us.