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.
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.
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.)
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.
Really? I think it's more or less inevitable. It just won't be in this contract cycle and we won't reap the same the gains as the rest of the conference members until at least another full cycle after that.
I 100% agree with this and think people are missing a pretty big piece of the ND discussion.
ND is private and has a deal with NBC. As they're private, we do not know the details of their NBC deal. ND is NBC's only football partner; if NBC loses ND, they lose NCAA Football. ND is a huge brand, and NBC will pay of up for that plus they current have all the leverage in the world with NBC. They have an excellent hand to play with NBC and don't risk diluting their revenue with Rutgers, et all.
While we won't contribute much on the field, we do bring in the bay area market which has a TON of big 10 alumni, two of the best research universities in the country, and a domination of Olympic sports. Adding the west coast schools in a lot of ways rounds out the B1G.
not necessarily. If ND goes, Stanford might bite to make a pair. (Personally, don't see Stanford having that much interest in playing the big boy NIL game. Or Cal, for that matter, which is why I don't believe they would be attractive in later cycles.)
never meant to suggest that anyone's aspirations are tied to ND. And I agree with you, ND will sit bcos they can jump anytime. My point was that, IFF ND does want to join the BiG, Stanford could be a school that joins along with them. (Brings BA eyeballs to the cable carriage.) Of course, U-Dub and Oregon would be considerations, too. If I'm the BiG, all three of those schools would be a target before Cal.
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.
And I can really care less about SC at this point. I'm convinced they are going to get thoroughly housed in the B1G, and I'm going to eat it up every minute of it.
If lost revenue for Cal is the primary issue, then why would you not care about USC? (UCLA, Oregon, Washington, and Stanford combined do not equal the value of USC alone.)
That's a good point and I don't have a great answer. I'd like it if SC came back too, but that is now an impossibility. But I guess I'm also less butt hurt about their departure and do kinda want to enjoy seeing them face plant. UCLA is like our little brother and sister. It's more personal.
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,
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.
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.
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.)
Zero
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.
It might be a good thing they are clueless about college football. They might come up with ridiculous ideas.
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%.
Really? I think it's more or less inevitable. It just won't be in this contract cycle and we won't reap the same the gains as the rest of the conference members until at least another full cycle after that.
And don't believe bloggers that leave out Cal when discussing B1G expansion. If Stanford goes, so goes we.
I 100% agree with this and think people are missing a pretty big piece of the ND discussion.
ND is private and has a deal with NBC. As they're private, we do not know the details of their NBC deal. ND is NBC's only football partner; if NBC loses ND, they lose NCAA Football. ND is a huge brand, and NBC will pay of up for that plus they current have all the leverage in the world with NBC. They have an excellent hand to play with NBC and don't risk diluting their revenue with Rutgers, et all.
While we won't contribute much on the field, we do bring in the bay area market which has a TON of big 10 alumni, two of the best research universities in the country, and a domination of Olympic sports. Adding the west coast schools in a lot of ways rounds out the B1G.
not necessarily. If ND goes, Stanford might bite to make a pair. (Personally, don't see Stanford having that much interest in playing the big boy NIL game. Or Cal, for that matter, which is why I don't believe they would be attractive in later cycles.)
Tea leaves seem to indicate ND will be sitting out this cycle. I also am not convinced Cal’s or Stanford’s B1G aspirations are firmly tied to ND.
never meant to suggest that anyone's aspirations are tied to ND. And I agree with you, ND will sit bcos they can jump anytime. My point was that, IFF ND does want to join the BiG, Stanford could be a school that joins along with them. (Brings BA eyeballs to the cable carriage.) Of course, U-Dub and Oregon would be considerations, too. If I'm the BiG, all three of those schools would be a target before Cal.
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.
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.
Purportedly, USC wasn't going to go to the B1G without UCLA.
Let's put that assumption to the test.
USC websites state that USC is going regardless.
That's what I'd assumed but was hoping that they'd at least offer some token resistance lol
Well, then, fuck U$C.
Then B1G will be happy. One less school to share the pie. Cal and UCLA will both lose out.
That's the missing piece of leverage: who has it over B1G? If this is indeed the case then I think Cal and UCLA to B1G happens.
I do.
And I can really care less about SC at this point. I'm convinced they are going to get thoroughly housed in the B1G, and I'm going to eat it up every minute of it.
If lost revenue for Cal is the primary issue, then why would you not care about USC? (UCLA, Oregon, Washington, and Stanford combined do not equal the value of USC alone.)
That's a good point and I don't have a great answer. I'd like it if SC came back too, but that is now an impossibility. But I guess I'm also less butt hurt about their departure and do kinda want to enjoy seeing them face plant. UCLA is like our little brother and sister. It's more personal.
I could care less about USC too. I'm worried adding UCLA back means Pac12 continues on as if nothing happened.
If fUCLA is forced to pay Cal, is Cal going to have to share that money with the 9 other conference schools?
No.
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,
I think the chances of blocking get lower by the hour, but hey makes for good headlines for a day.