Of course this won't resolve quickly, but CAL football kinda sorta NEEDS it to... 4 star DB Jones, our highest rated and first commit and one of the most vocal early on, decommitted. He did list UCLA moving to B1G as something he needs to consider. Of course, that wasn't his only comment and he is still engaging with CAL but sitting in a lifeboat, even one that's technically still floating, is not a great recruiting position.
It seems clear to me that 1) the Regents are unlikely to block the move, but 2) they feel as though they could if they wanted to fight it out in the courts and 3) are pissed at UCLA for backdooring them (RIP Peter Carril). They also have a very practical problem with this move sinking Cal further into debt. The Regents will make UCLA subvent part of Cal's debt for the duration of the new B1G contract. It seems inevitable.
The point about the Regents being able to "retain" a responsibility previously delegated, which is really recalling the delegation could easily happen relative to future events that may or may not ever occur that would require a decision, is one thing; taking retroactive action after action has already been taken is another. The new B1G media contracts have already been set, built on the arrival of USC & UCLA in 2024. While its true the great majority of the value of the media rights moved from the Pac to the B1G is USC, thereiss will be some loss to the B1G and its members if UCLA were to renig on their commitment. If UCLA backs out, the next Pac media rights negotiations is still going to be significantly reduced because USC is still gone, but also UCLA could find themselves losing not only the increase they gain from their B1G share, but also a repayment of the differential to the B1G schools that might result if Fox/CBS/NBC adjust their payment downward due to the decreased value they are getting.
Cal supporters seem focused on the notion of UCLA needing for some reason to take care of their little brother, but the same issue applies to the 15 B1G schools that UCLA has made a commitment to. And if UCLA returns, Cal is still looking at a significant net reduction in media revenue. That scenario could well cost the system overall more than letting UCLA go, not to mention poisoning the well regarding inter-conference relations for years to come. But it would be so "Cal" to try to force a move that in balance would result in an even worse outcome,
How realistic is it for the regents to force UCLA to forfeit an additional $45M-$60M per year in order to preserve an additional $3.3M for Cal Athletics? (Of the forecasted loss of revenue, almost $10M is attributable to USC; $3.3M to UCLA.)
The Regents have the power to rescind delegated authority and block the move. I, however, would hope that their outside counsel has told them that they will be tearing up a legal contract and damaging the other party (the B1G and its media partners) that now have a very defined value as to what UCLA and the LA market have put on the table as part of that $8B deal. I'm guessing it's well into the 9 figures. And remember that B1G lawyers went over the policy of delegating authority to the individual Chancellors and found it "clear and established." Then the lawyers for FOX, NBC and CBS all went over it and found it "clear and established." That's four groups of very high priced outside counsel that all signed off on UCLA's ability to enter into the expansion agreement.
Long story short, the Regents can tear up the agreement. They just need to be ready for the B1G, FOX, NBC and CBS to legally nuke them from orbit if they do.
Of course, this demonstrates that Jones has no interest in academics. He is approaching this like he's going to an NFL prep camp. Good luck with that. One blown out knee and this kid is finished. Thank you NIL for destroying college football.
Per numerous published reports, please note that the new Big Ten contract will distribute $75M per year as a baseline with the potential to increase to $80M-$100M. Apparently, this is the media contract only and does not include postseason revenue distributions. (Your article states $60-$70M annually per school which is lower than anyone else is reporting.)
The question I have isn't whether the Regents have authority. I figure that litigation could act as a de facto veto thus giving them more leverage than they otherwise may have.
That being said, moving Cal and UCLA as a bundle would be a preferred solution by all parties (except the Pac) so we're still stuck waiting for the B1G.
Of course this won't resolve quickly, but CAL football kinda sorta NEEDS it to... 4 star DB Jones, our highest rated and first commit and one of the most vocal early on, decommitted. He did list UCLA moving to B1G as something he needs to consider. Of course, that wasn't his only comment and he is still engaging with CAL but sitting in a lifeboat, even one that's technically still floating, is not a great recruiting position.
It seems clear to me that 1) the Regents are unlikely to block the move, but 2) they feel as though they could if they wanted to fight it out in the courts and 3) are pissed at UCLA for backdooring them (RIP Peter Carril). They also have a very practical problem with this move sinking Cal further into debt. The Regents will make UCLA subvent part of Cal's debt for the duration of the new B1G contract. It seems inevitable.
The point about the Regents being able to "retain" a responsibility previously delegated, which is really recalling the delegation could easily happen relative to future events that may or may not ever occur that would require a decision, is one thing; taking retroactive action after action has already been taken is another. The new B1G media contracts have already been set, built on the arrival of USC & UCLA in 2024. While its true the great majority of the value of the media rights moved from the Pac to the B1G is USC, thereiss will be some loss to the B1G and its members if UCLA were to renig on their commitment. If UCLA backs out, the next Pac media rights negotiations is still going to be significantly reduced because USC is still gone, but also UCLA could find themselves losing not only the increase they gain from their B1G share, but also a repayment of the differential to the B1G schools that might result if Fox/CBS/NBC adjust their payment downward due to the decreased value they are getting.
Cal supporters seem focused on the notion of UCLA needing for some reason to take care of their little brother, but the same issue applies to the 15 B1G schools that UCLA has made a commitment to. And if UCLA returns, Cal is still looking at a significant net reduction in media revenue. That scenario could well cost the system overall more than letting UCLA go, not to mention poisoning the well regarding inter-conference relations for years to come. But it would be so "Cal" to try to force a move that in balance would result in an even worse outcome,
How realistic is it for the regents to force UCLA to forfeit an additional $45M-$60M per year in order to preserve an additional $3.3M for Cal Athletics? (Of the forecasted loss of revenue, almost $10M is attributable to USC; $3.3M to UCLA.)
It might be a good thing they are clueless about college football. They might come up with ridiculous ideas.
I like that the Regents are discussing it and welcome any potential gain for Cal.
But at this point, does anyone want UCLA back to Pac12 without USC? I think that will be a self imposed lose - lose situation.
The Regents have the power to rescind delegated authority and block the move. I, however, would hope that their outside counsel has told them that they will be tearing up a legal contract and damaging the other party (the B1G and its media partners) that now have a very defined value as to what UCLA and the LA market have put on the table as part of that $8B deal. I'm guessing it's well into the 9 figures. And remember that B1G lawyers went over the policy of delegating authority to the individual Chancellors and found it "clear and established." Then the lawyers for FOX, NBC and CBS all went over it and found it "clear and established." That's four groups of very high priced outside counsel that all signed off on UCLA's ability to enter into the expansion agreement.
Long story short, the Regents can tear up the agreement. They just need to be ready for the B1G, FOX, NBC and CBS to legally nuke them from orbit if they do.
Of course, this demonstrates that Jones has no interest in academics. He is approaching this like he's going to an NFL prep camp. Good luck with that. One blown out knee and this kid is finished. Thank you NIL for destroying college football.
Per numerous published reports, please note that the new Big Ten contract will distribute $75M per year as a baseline with the potential to increase to $80M-$100M. Apparently, this is the media contract only and does not include postseason revenue distributions. (Your article states $60-$70M annually per school which is lower than anyone else is reporting.)
The question I have isn't whether the Regents have authority. I figure that litigation could act as a de facto veto thus giving them more leverage than they otherwise may have.
That being said, moving Cal and UCLA as a bundle would be a preferred solution by all parties (except the Pac) so we're still stuck waiting for the B1G.
another excellent article, Avi. My only quibble is that I'd put the chances of Cal earning an BiG invite at much less than 35%.
If fUCLA is forced to pay Cal, is Cal going to have to share that money with the 9 other conference schools?