I have the feeling this is the way things will shake out. That they'll work some subventing of Cal's financial losses by UCLA. I'm note sure how Christ will be able to look Drake in the eye.
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.
It might be wishful thinking to expect the uc regents to have any impact on ucla’s move, but brining up UC Davis makes no sense. They obviously are not part of the pac12 and are not impacted directly by ucla’s departure from the conference unlike cal
C'mon my dude...UCLA after 2024 will have met it's obligations under the current media deal and (I presume) it's notification and exit requirements of the Pac-12 conference. The notion that any school owes any other school after they leave because the conference can't get as good a deal in the future is ludicrous on it's face. If USC and UCLA were breaking an agreement/contract then I'd be much more sympathetic to the other schools. This isn't the case here. Cal has the *exact* same claim to UCLA revenue after 2024 as any other UC school...like UC Davis for example....which is to say zero. Cal and the remaining schools need to figure out their future not wallow in a pity party.
LOL…You’re right it is a bit of a pity party or in Cal’s case it’s a technicality party. We are part of the same system as UCLA so the expectation is the regents have a responsibility to look out for the system as a whole. Is it a long shot…definitely
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.
I don't expect any concrete news until 2024 since the Pac-12 media deal doesn't end until Summer 2024. The BIG still needs to finalize their TV deal and USC and UCLA won't leave the Pac-12 until the summer of 2024. Meanwhile, the ESPN-SEC deal doesn't start until 2024 and officially Oklahoma and Texas will join the SEC in 2025, though I'm sure they're working to get it done for 2024. The ACC is locked in until 2036 unless something crazy happens while the Big-12 TV deal doesn't end until Summer 2025.
I don't think there will be much news coming from the Pac-12 until early 2024. If there is news, it's because the other conferences are being proactive - I don't see the Pac-12 going on the offense for anything.
For the players, the transfer portal opens up a lot of options. They have at least 2 seasons under the current system, and once the New World Order is set up in 2024, there will be lots of players exploring all their options.
Just looked at some other things and yeah, I think 2024 is key since the TV execs are playing games. NBC's contract for Notre Dame home games ends the summer of 2025 and the college football playoff bowl games TV contract ends January 2026.
BIG won't add anyone since no team except Notre Dame can guarantee Fox will pay more money with a bigger payout for each team. Oregon and Washington are desperate to join, I'm sure, but that won't happen until the Notre Dame question is resolved.
The only leverage the Pac-12 has is that ESPN likes having football games going all day and night long, but that leverage is gone when there is no one else bidding for the Pac-12 contract. Fox won't pay money for a TV contract since they're all in with the BIG, so we're stuck with the machinations of ESPN executives unless another media giant takes a shot (NBC? AppleTV? Netflix? Anyone?).
One crazy scenario where things move prior to 2024 - though it may not be crazy - is if the ACC breaks up. Right now, Notre Dame is contractually obligated to join the ACC if they do join a conference, but if at least 8 teams vote to leave the ACC, then their TV contract dies before the 2036 end date and there is no ACC left to join.
Fox and ESPN could conspire to break up the ACC - all they need is the SEC, BIG, and Big-12 to poach at least 8 teams from the ACC. The TV people likely want 3 conferences of 20 or 22 teams each, so the SEC will take 4-6 teams (Clemson, UNC, Duke, FSU, Miami, Virginia?). BIG will get Notre Dame and maybe add 3-5 more teams (Oregon, Washington, Pitt, not sure of other two if at all since they want AAU schools only). Big-12 can poach Louisville, V-tech, and easily grab up the Arizona, ASU, Utah, and Colorado.
In that situation, Pac-12 is done. Stanford goes independent, OSU and WSU join the Mountain West, and Cal? We're screwed and will beg for the BIG to take us with Stanford.
All possible but the more likely is big 10 getting Stanford and ND keeping the traditional Stanford/ND and USC/ND rivalries in conference as well as picking up UW and OR to make 20.
The Notre Dame contracts to play USC and Stanford also point to 2024 being the key year - the Stanford contract ends 2024 and the USC contract ends 2026. I don't know if they'll renew the Stanford contract - aside from De La Salle, there aren't as many Notre Dame recruits in Northern California when compared to Southern California, so the USC contract should be easily renewed (I'm guessing USC were the ones delaying those talks while they plotted sneaky backstabbing shit). Also, Notre Dame has been playing USC regularly for 95 years (minus a few years for WW2 and COVID) but has only played Stanford for about 33 years (minus a few years here and there).
If the BigTen wanted to get to 20 teams, then it would be logical to grab UW, Oregon, and Stanford, assuming they get Notre Dame. However, I don't see those three teams adding value to any TV contract so that each team gets more money - adding any team after Notre Dame will only dilute the pool, so to speak. Instead, I wouldn't be surprised if they just stopped after getting Notre Dame or, if the SEC somehow gets Notre Dame. seek out teams in the South.
Notre Dame is in the driver's seat for more conference realignment and I wouldn't be surprised if they were instigating a bidding war between the BigTen and the SEC.
The only logic that fits is TV market share and media rights revenue. Everything else is a distant second in consideration. No one gives a shit about wins or losses, tradition or whatnot - all that matters is money.
Obviously adding ND would be a prize for any conference. I wouldn't sleep on Stanford tho. Big 10 values academics too and Stanford brings that. And while they may not be the football team from the last decade they win a boatload of Natties too in (admittedly) money losing sports. I think Stanford is attractive to the big 10. The question mark is UW and OR. Here's the big if...they are known football brands. OR up and coming in men's BB but we'll see if they can sustain that success. Both markets aren't huge in the scheme of things but they'd have a lock on both for sure. Who knows but both are going to make a move together no doubt
The fact that neither saw it coming is Cal leadership in a nutshell. On the heels of Texas/Oklahoma to the SEC, the NIL dynamic, and the fact that USC has had a foot out the door for over a decade, to be caught completely off-guard when both Conferences tv deals are up soon is so disappointing and leaves me very concerned about the future of Cal athletics.
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.
Then UC Davis and the other UCs better be getting a piece of UCLAs BIG 10 money then....as they would have exactly the same relationship as Cal to UCLA after 2024
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.
Ehhhhhhh...as a fellow bruin alum I'm not with you at all. While I get your point it's not an either or thing between athletics and academics. I'd argue that some of my most memorable college experiences was connected to both attendence of NCAA sports and playing IMs. I was there at our last BB natty and it was incredible as a student. I'd also point out that nothing prevents any college from helping out X number of underprivileged students by way of scholarships that wouldn't impact athletics at all. Revenue sports also support those other sports that don't do as well. Don't get me wrong...every college should operate within their means and I have no idea if the Cal investment/loan you mention was wise or not but every school has to make this decision that matches their program
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 doubt that you graduated from UCLA, because you are apparently illiterate. You did not notice the condescending tone of both the story and the majority of comments by Cal people here? Get lost.
You ain't wrong...while it's up to debate academically which school is better, there's no question UCLA has far surpassed Cal as the flagship UC in the UC system long ago. When the total package is taken into account....academics, athletics, location, campus, facilities, and the quarter system <--i will die on this hill idgaf..., it's not even close.
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.
Doubtful Call would ever settle for the Mountain West under any circumstances. More likely we'd default on the debt, and simply close down football. Maybe touch football in front of Sterns.
Time to lawyer up. Buckle the chinstrap. Cal might be able to claim tortious interference in this case.
That’s totally ridiculous. There is no implied or actual contractual relationship between UCLA and Cal.
Can the Regents transfer money from UCLA to Cal to offset the losses?
I have the feeling this is the way things will shake out. That they'll work some subventing of Cal's financial losses by UCLA. I'm note sure how Christ will be able to look Drake in the eye.
So that would be the former flagship of the UC system begging the new flagship for money?
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.
It might be wishful thinking to expect the uc regents to have any impact on ucla’s move, but brining up UC Davis makes no sense. They obviously are not part of the pac12 and are not impacted directly by ucla’s departure from the conference unlike cal
C'mon my dude...UCLA after 2024 will have met it's obligations under the current media deal and (I presume) it's notification and exit requirements of the Pac-12 conference. The notion that any school owes any other school after they leave because the conference can't get as good a deal in the future is ludicrous on it's face. If USC and UCLA were breaking an agreement/contract then I'd be much more sympathetic to the other schools. This isn't the case here. Cal has the *exact* same claim to UCLA revenue after 2024 as any other UC school...like UC Davis for example....which is to say zero. Cal and the remaining schools need to figure out their future not wallow in a pity party.
LOL…You’re right it is a bit of a pity party or in Cal’s case it’s a technicality party. We are part of the same system as UCLA so the expectation is the regents have a responsibility to look out for the system as a whole. Is it a long shot…definitely
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.
I don't expect any concrete news until 2024 since the Pac-12 media deal doesn't end until Summer 2024. The BIG still needs to finalize their TV deal and USC and UCLA won't leave the Pac-12 until the summer of 2024. Meanwhile, the ESPN-SEC deal doesn't start until 2024 and officially Oklahoma and Texas will join the SEC in 2025, though I'm sure they're working to get it done for 2024. The ACC is locked in until 2036 unless something crazy happens while the Big-12 TV deal doesn't end until Summer 2025.
I don't think there will be much news coming from the Pac-12 until early 2024. If there is news, it's because the other conferences are being proactive - I don't see the Pac-12 going on the offense for anything.
For the players, the transfer portal opens up a lot of options. They have at least 2 seasons under the current system, and once the New World Order is set up in 2024, there will be lots of players exploring all their options.
Just looked at some other things and yeah, I think 2024 is key since the TV execs are playing games. NBC's contract for Notre Dame home games ends the summer of 2025 and the college football playoff bowl games TV contract ends January 2026.
BIG won't add anyone since no team except Notre Dame can guarantee Fox will pay more money with a bigger payout for each team. Oregon and Washington are desperate to join, I'm sure, but that won't happen until the Notre Dame question is resolved.
The only leverage the Pac-12 has is that ESPN likes having football games going all day and night long, but that leverage is gone when there is no one else bidding for the Pac-12 contract. Fox won't pay money for a TV contract since they're all in with the BIG, so we're stuck with the machinations of ESPN executives unless another media giant takes a shot (NBC? AppleTV? Netflix? Anyone?).
One crazy scenario where things move prior to 2024 - though it may not be crazy - is if the ACC breaks up. Right now, Notre Dame is contractually obligated to join the ACC if they do join a conference, but if at least 8 teams vote to leave the ACC, then their TV contract dies before the 2036 end date and there is no ACC left to join.
Fox and ESPN could conspire to break up the ACC - all they need is the SEC, BIG, and Big-12 to poach at least 8 teams from the ACC. The TV people likely want 3 conferences of 20 or 22 teams each, so the SEC will take 4-6 teams (Clemson, UNC, Duke, FSU, Miami, Virginia?). BIG will get Notre Dame and maybe add 3-5 more teams (Oregon, Washington, Pitt, not sure of other two if at all since they want AAU schools only). Big-12 can poach Louisville, V-tech, and easily grab up the Arizona, ASU, Utah, and Colorado.
In that situation, Pac-12 is done. Stanford goes independent, OSU and WSU join the Mountain West, and Cal? We're screwed and will beg for the BIG to take us with Stanford.
All possible but the more likely is big 10 getting Stanford and ND keeping the traditional Stanford/ND and USC/ND rivalries in conference as well as picking up UW and OR to make 20.
The Notre Dame contracts to play USC and Stanford also point to 2024 being the key year - the Stanford contract ends 2024 and the USC contract ends 2026. I don't know if they'll renew the Stanford contract - aside from De La Salle, there aren't as many Notre Dame recruits in Northern California when compared to Southern California, so the USC contract should be easily renewed (I'm guessing USC were the ones delaying those talks while they plotted sneaky backstabbing shit). Also, Notre Dame has been playing USC regularly for 95 years (minus a few years for WW2 and COVID) but has only played Stanford for about 33 years (minus a few years here and there).
If the BigTen wanted to get to 20 teams, then it would be logical to grab UW, Oregon, and Stanford, assuming they get Notre Dame. However, I don't see those three teams adding value to any TV contract so that each team gets more money - adding any team after Notre Dame will only dilute the pool, so to speak. Instead, I wouldn't be surprised if they just stopped after getting Notre Dame or, if the SEC somehow gets Notre Dame. seek out teams in the South.
Notre Dame is in the driver's seat for more conference realignment and I wouldn't be surprised if they were instigating a bidding war between the BigTen and the SEC.
The only logic that fits is TV market share and media rights revenue. Everything else is a distant second in consideration. No one gives a shit about wins or losses, tradition or whatnot - all that matters is money.
Obviously adding ND would be a prize for any conference. I wouldn't sleep on Stanford tho. Big 10 values academics too and Stanford brings that. And while they may not be the football team from the last decade they win a boatload of Natties too in (admittedly) money losing sports. I think Stanford is attractive to the big 10. The question mark is UW and OR. Here's the big if...they are known football brands. OR up and coming in men's BB but we'll see if they can sustain that success. Both markets aren't huge in the scheme of things but they'd have a lock on both for sure. Who knows but both are going to make a move together no doubt
This seems very likely and very depressing.
Well said and appreciated.
Lots of different players will no doubt end up making lots of different decisions (as valid or invalid as previously ... see the transfer portal) but one recruit is probably like many who will wait and see for a while... https://247sports.com/college/california/Article/Four-Star-DB-Maliki-Crawford-cuts-his-list-to-Cal-ucla-and-USC-football-recruiting-pac-12-re-alignment--189824374/
Christ was “blindsided” eh? What does she do all day then?
She manages her own campus. Not sure she can be expected to know what UCLA is doing unless someone tells her.
She was blindsided because Knowlton was too busy fundraising. Is it too much to admit that Knowlton didn't see it coming, either?
The fact that neither saw it coming is Cal leadership in a nutshell. On the heels of Texas/Oklahoma to the SEC, the NIL dynamic, and the fact that USC has had a foot out the door for over a decade, to be caught completely off-guard when both Conferences tv deals are up soon is so disappointing and leaves me very concerned about the future of Cal athletics.
Knowlton was too busy with his coaching search for mens basketball to replace Fox….
Oh wait.
Did Knowlton blame the LA schools leaving on COVID? The pandemic is his go-to excuse.
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.
Then UC Davis and the other UCs better be getting a piece of UCLAs BIG 10 money then....as they would have exactly the same relationship as Cal to UCLA after 2024
Yes, yes, and yes. I too am highly interested in knowing what Drake knew and when.
I hate the Drake.
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.
Ehhhhhhh...as a fellow bruin alum I'm not with you at all. While I get your point it's not an either or thing between athletics and academics. I'd argue that some of my most memorable college experiences was connected to both attendence of NCAA sports and playing IMs. I was there at our last BB natty and it was incredible as a student. I'd also point out that nothing prevents any college from helping out X number of underprivileged students by way of scholarships that wouldn't impact athletics at all. Revenue sports also support those other sports that don't do as well. Don't get me wrong...every college should operate within their means and I have no idea if the Cal investment/loan you mention was wise or not but every school has to make this decision that matches their program
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.
Dude, as a fellow alum, stop trolling - it’s tacky af
I doubt that you graduated from UCLA, because you are apparently illiterate. You did not notice the condescending tone of both the story and the majority of comments by Cal people here? Get lost.
Your grammar’s pretty poor. What year did your grandpa graduate UCLA? Were there a lot of other bruin fans at CSUN?
Spoken like a TrOJan. You’re a waste of space.
Spoken like somebody who’s incredibly insecure, and needs to go on somebody else’s forum to “prove” how amazing they are. You’re probably dead inside.
You ain't wrong...while it's up to debate academically which school is better, there's no question UCLA has far surpassed Cal as the flagship UC in the UC system long ago. When the total package is taken into account....academics, athletics, location, campus, facilities, and the quarter system <--i will die on this hill idgaf..., it's not even close.
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.
Unlikely UCLA pays Cal anything. What's the basis for that "debt" to Cal?
I would be happy with this outcome.
And what happens to Cal Football going forward? This scenario leaves us twisting in the wind regarding inclusion in the only conferences that matter.
Most likely, Cal football continues to be solid on D but a dumpster fire on offense, with this eventually costing Wilcox wins and his job.
This leaves us in the Mountain West, where we will struggle to compete.
Doubtful Call would ever settle for the Mountain West under any circumstances. More likely we'd default on the debt, and simply close down football. Maybe touch football in front of Sterns.
IMO, this is the most likely outcome to all this.