Board of Regents Approves UCLA's Move to Big Ten

[425cougfan]

Board OK's UCLA to Big Ten, includes conditions

UCLA's move to the Big Ten was approved by the UC Board of Regents by an 11-5 vote Wednesday, but as part of the decision, the Bruins might have to provide a subsidy to UC Berkeley.

www.espn.com

No surprise, really, but disappointing. Even the conditions set forth by the Board of Regents further suck for the Pac-12, other than Berkeley, perhaps. Berkeley gets more money than other Pac-12 members (due to UCLA having to pay it a yet-to-be-determined amount franging from $2m to $10m per year, depending on what kind of deal the Pac-12 gets) and most of the "mitigation measures" can be touted as additional benefits for student athletes that Pac-12 schools would then have to compete against, even if they were necessitated largely by increased travel burdens and other impacts from the move. Kliavkoff looked way too much like his predecessor on this, even though stopping this would have been tough.

 

[Coug1990]

Board OK's UCLA to Big Ten, includes conditions

UCLA's move to the Big Ten was approved by the UC Board of Regents by an 11-5 vote Wednesday, but as part of the decision, the Bruins might have to provide a subsidy to UC Berkeley.

www.espn.com

No surprise, really, but disappointing. Even the conditions set forth by the Board of Regents further suck for the Pac-12, other than Berkeley, perhaps. Berkeley gets more money than other Pac-12 members (due to UCLA having to pay it a yet-to-be-determined amount franging from $2m to $10m per year, depending on what kind of deal the Pac-12 gets) and most of the "mitigation measures" can be touted as additional benefits for student athletes that Pac-12 schools would then have to compete against, even if they were necessitated largely by increased travel burdens and other impacts from the move. Kliavkoff looked way too much like his predecessor on this, even though stopping this would have been tough.

I think there is zero Kiavkoff could have done. He is not a King, he works for schools. That USC and UCLA left is because of the terrible leadership of the conference presidents who hired and kept Hansen and Scott for so long.

 

[ttowncoug]

time to move on.

 

[mikalalas]

Board OK's UCLA to Big Ten, includes conditions

UCLA's move to the Big Ten was approved by the UC Board of Regents by an 11-5 vote Wednesday, but as part of the decision, the Bruins might have to provide a subsidy to UC Berkeley.

www.espn.com

No surprise, really, but disappointing. Even the conditions set forth by the Board of Regents further suck for the Pac-12, other than Berkeley, perhaps. Berkeley gets more money than other Pac-12 members (due to UCLA having to pay it a yet-to-be-determined amount franging from $2m to $10m per year, depending on what kind of deal the Pac-12 gets) and most of the "mitigation measures" can be touted as additional benefits for student athletes that Pac-12 schools would then have to compete against, even if they were necessitated largely by increased travel burdens and other impacts from the move. Kliavkoff looked way too much like his predecessor on this, even though stopping this would have been tough.

The Board are a bunch of DUMBA$$ES for approving the deal, when they had the legal right and could have forced, made UCLA stay in PAC 12.

Now CAL is gonna be stuck in a SERIOUSLY HURT PAC 12 for only the equivalent of a few wipe their A$$ES, pennies, etc.

Basically CAL is getting SCREWED. Cal is getting about 6 mil per year to lose the about 13+ to 27+ mil Cal would get per year, had UCLA stayed, and helped PAC 12 get a better Media deal.

And that's just only the beginning.

Walton, and PAC 12 Commish and others outlined for the board how many more millions both UCLA, and CAL would both lose, in increased travel cost, etc, if UCLA was allowed to leave to Big 10.

But despite all that the DUMBASS BOARD STILL STUPIDLY DIDNT FORCE UCLA TO STAY IN PAC 12, AND LET THEM LEAVE TO BIG 10, INSTEAD.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

time to move on.

Agreed. so San Diego State and........Fresno? Colorado State (basically WSU)? UNLV? My choice, much as I hate Las Vegas, which I have never been to. Just push the button.

Oh, and as Goerge Carlin said - F-the F-ing F-ers.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Board OK's UCLA to Big Ten, includes conditions

UCLA's move to the Big Ten was approved by the UC Board of Regents by an 11-5 vote Wednesday, but as part of the decision, the Bruins might have to provide a subsidy to UC Berkeley.

www.espn.com

No surprise, really, but disappointing. Even the conditions set forth by the Board of Regents further suck for the Pac-12, other than Berkeley, perhaps. Berkeley gets more money than other Pac-12 members (due to UCLA having to pay it a yet-to-be-determined amount franging from $2m to $10m per year, depending on what kind of deal the Pac-12 gets) and most of the "mitigation measures" can be touted as additional benefits for student athletes that Pac-12 schools would then have to compete against, even if they were necessitated largely by increased travel burdens and other impacts from the move. Kliavkoff looked way too much like his predecessor on this, even though stopping this would have been tough.

I'm sure there was a lot of graft to politicians going on in that deal.

 

[Observer11]

I'm sure there was a lot of graft to politicians going on in that deal.

Is Newsom on the Big Guy comp plan?

 

[ttowncoug]

5 Trustees didn't approve.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Maybe UCLA will surprise everyone and dominate the B10?


I'm sorry if you were swallowing your coffee or doing anything else that would have been unfortunate when you started laughing....

 

[roses04]

Probably a wise decision, look I didn't want UCLA or USC to leave, however killing the UCLA deal now and reversing everything probably creates more problems than it solves. Taking UCLA back now would be like trying to convince an X to move back in after she dumped your ass, and slept with 1/2 dozen other guys. Secondly If UCLA didn't move the Evil 10 would come right back and poach 2-3 more teams to really screw up the conference. Oregon, Washington, or ASU among others would jump at the chance, then where are we? So lets move on without them, I suspect they will regret it in a few years. UCLA will end up like Nebraska and Missouri, the change in conference didn't do much for either school in terms of being competitive, but they do have more money.

 

[Observer11]

Maybe UCLA will surprise everyone and dominate the B10?


I'm sorry if you were swallowing your coffee or doing anything else that would have been unfortunate when you started laughing....

UCLA will compete for titles in basketball, volleyball and baseball.

Same as they do in the Pac 12.

Their program is not built for winning in football in the Big 10.

 

[95coug]

Agreed. so San Diego State and........Fresno? Colorado State (basically WSU)? UNLV? My choice, much as I hate Las Vegas, which I have never been to. Just push the button.

Oh, and as Goerge Carlin said - F-the F-ing F-ers.

SDSU is the obvious choice. They require a bit of a concession as an institution, but it's one we have to make to stay in SoCal.

Not Fresno. They're not as well positioned geographically, and they check fewer boxes institutionally.

Institutionally, UNLV is the next best choice. They're already R-1, they're in a solid (but indifferent) market, and, well...Vegas. It'll be a while before they're competitive, if they ever are, but every conference needs a whipping boy. Better them than us.

New Mexico (UNM) is also an institutional fit, but they don't bring market and are only slightly more competitive than UNLV...and the Arizona schools won't want them. Same for Reno, similar for Utah State.

Colorado State is a dark horse. They're an institutional fit, would bring what's left of the Colorado market, and bring a much more natural rivalry for CU.

SMU is a step down across the board. They're in a big market, but don't carry any of it.

Boise State is a big fat NO. They're a major step down institutionally (they're barely R2...nowhere close to R1). 10 years ago they had some national draw, but that has faded and will continue to do so....plus their fans are in the same league as UW and UO. And football is basically the only thing they bring. Hell no.

I'd rather see us make some moves against the Big 12 rather than elevating marginal programs. I don't like the geography, but if we were able to pull the Kansas schools we start looking pretty solid in basketball. I'd also entertain Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and even TCU. Iowa state fits institutionally, but doesn't fit geographically unless we grab someone else. I'd even be OK with a straight-up merger between the Big 12 and Pac 12, although I don't think that's really on the table anymore.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

SDSU is the obvious choice. They require a bit of a concession as an institution, but it's one we have to make to stay in SoCal.

Not Fresno. They're not as well positioned geographically, and they check fewer boxes institutionally.

Institutionally, UNLV is the next best choice. They're already R-1, they're in a solid (but indifferent) market, and, well...Vegas. It'll be a while before they're competitive, if they ever are, but every conference needs a whipping boy. Better them than us.

New Mexico (UNM) is also an institutional fit, but they don't bring market and are only slightly more competitive than UNLV...and the Arizona schools won't want them. Same for Reno, similar for Utah State.

Colorado State is a dark horse. They're an institutional fit, would bring what's left of the Colorado market, and bring a much more natural rivalry for CU.

SMU is a step down across the board. They're in a big market, but don't carry any of it.

Boise State is a big fat NO. They're a major step down institutionally (they're barely R2...nowhere close to R1). 10 years ago they had some national draw, but that has faded and will continue to do so....plus their fans are in the same league as UW and UO. And football is basically the only thing they bring. Hell no.

I'd rather see us make some moves against the Big 12 rather than elevating marginal programs. I don't like the geography, but if we were able to pull the Kansas schools we start looking pretty solid in basketball. I'd also entertain Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and even TCU. Iowa state fits institutionally, but doesn't fit geographically unless we grab someone else. I'd even be OK with a straight-up merger between the Big 12 and Pac 12, although I don't think that's really on the table anymore.

Nice analysis. I do disagree on the "poach the Big-12" notion. Let's just stick to the West coast. San Diego State and UNLV make the most sense to me. I see UNLV just hired Bobby Petrino as OC - they could become relevant in the new Pac-12. Just keep him off of his bike and off of his assistants.

 

[95coug]

Nice analysis. I do disagree on the "poach the Big-12" notion. Let's just stick to the West coast. San Diego State and UNLV make the most sense to me. I see UNLV just hired Bobby Petrino as OC - they could become relevant in the new Pac-12. Just keep him off of his bike and off of his assistants.

I feel like the Pac-12 generally has a weak reputation as it is (and if we're being honest...more often than not lately, it's well-deserved). Grabbing 2-4 G5 teams to stay at at least 12 members won't help that perception. From that perspective, it would be better to have established P5 members. And if that puts the Big 12 back in fear of its future...better them than us.

I question whether UNLV will ever be relevant at the P5 level. And I question even more if Petrino can be kept off of his assistants.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

I feel like the Pac-12 generally has a weak reputation as it is (and if we're being honest...more often than not lately, it's well-deserved). Grabbing 2-4 G5 teams to stay at at least 12 members won't help that perception. From that perspective, it would be better to have established P5 members. And if that puts the Big 12 back in fear of its future...better them than us.

I question whether UNLV will ever be relevant at the P5 level. And I question even more if Petrino can be kept off of his assistants.

I dunno. Look at who the Big-12 is bringing in. UCF? Houston? Cincinnati? Racist U (Oops I mean BYU) What are their reputations? Baylor, TCU, etc?

SDSU is a no brainer, they are almost R-1. UNLV? Location, location. location. R-1 is a plus.

 

[COUGinNCW]

Nice analysis. I do disagree on the "poach the Big-12" notion. Let's just stick to the West coast. San Diego State and UNLV make the most sense to me. I see UNLV just hired Bobby Petrino as OC - they could become relevant in the new Pac-12. Just keep him off of his bike and off of his assistants.

I’d stay on the west coast as well, partially bc I don’t see an attractive Big12 program having a good reason to leave the conference. Id pull SDSU in and Gonzaga. UNLV offers very little and I think their upside is overrated.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

I’ Id pull Gonzaga.

F-that. They are a 3rd rate school, they don't play football and their entire identity is their BB team. Why would you even suggest that?

 

[Cougini5591]

Maybe UCLA will surprise everyone and dominate the B10?


I'm sorry if you were swallowing your coffee or doing anything else that would have been unfortunate when you started laughing....

I swear... UCLA is going to remain 4 through 7 wins. Maybe an 8 on Leap Year.

The # of times they get 30-pointed will sky rocket.

They will look "even more less than" fusc than before

 

[425cougfan]

If the Pac-12 doesn't grab UNLV (and perhaps even SDSU), the Big 12 will. Maybe the Pac-12 doesn't care if it loses Vegas, but it's in the Pacific time zone, among other things, and that west coast inventory is one of the things the Pac-12 has over the Big 12. The Big 12 would love to get its hands on SoCal and Vegas, and then would try to get the Arizona schools.

 

[wazzucougs96]

If the Pac-12 doesn't grab UNLV (and perhaps even SDSU), the Big 12 will. Maybe the Pac-12 doesn't care if it loses Vegas, but it's in the Pacific time zone, among other things, and that west coast inventory is one of the things the Pac-12 has over the Big 12. The Big 12 would love to get its hands on SoCal and Vegas, and then would try to get the Arizona schools.

Vegas is quickly becoming a recruiting hotbed too.

 

[COUGinNCW]

If the Pac-12 doesn't grab UNLV (and perhaps even SDSU), the Big 12 will. Maybe the Pac-12 doesn't care if it loses Vegas, but it's in the Pacific time zone, among other things, and that west coast inventory is one of the things the Pac-12 has over the Big 12. The Big 12 would love to get its hands on SoCal and Vegas, and then would try to get the Arizona schools.

Valid point. Also makes sense with BB tournie and Football title game there.

 

[CougInSpain]

Maybe try and convince Nebraska and OkSt to come to Pac-12? Travel would undoubtedly suck but no more than any other. Just a couple extra hours or less flying time. Also get TTU at the same time then throw in like SDSU or UNLV?

 

[mikalalas]

I feel like the Pac-12 generally has a weak reputation as it is (and if we're being honest...more often than not lately, it's well-deserved). Grabbing 2-4 G5 teams to stay at at least 12 members won't help that perception. From that perspective, it would be better to have established P5 members. And if that puts the Big 12 back in fear of its future...better them than us.

I question whether UNLV will ever be relevant at the P5 level. And I question even more if Petrino can be kept off of his assistants.

The PAC 12 is in no shape, RIGHT NOW to be able to raid anybody from the Big 12, except maybe Iowa St.

In order to successfully raid the Big 12, and not get raided by Big 12 in return, the following has to happen.

1. The PAC 12 needs to STABILIZE, STOP THE BLEEDING, losing of it's members.

If the Pac 12/10 becomes PAC 6/8, the PAC IS SCREWED. THAT MUST NOT HAPPEN.

The way to avoid that is to A. Add SDSU, and SMU, OR UNLV, and get to 12 again. Then if the Pac loses 2, it would be back down to 10, instead of down to 8, facing getting knocked down to 4 to 6.

Doing that would give the PERCEPTION that the PAC is STABILIZING, etc.

2. Do the joint alliance thing that the PAC/ACC have been NEGOTIATING. That will help the Pac 12 get a BETTER MEDIA deal as part of the JOINT ACC/PAC media deal alliance. Also getting SDSU, and SMU/UNLV, WILL help PAC 12 ALSO GET A BETTER MEDIA DEAL.

3. After all that, the Pac 12 would be in position to Raid, get Iowa St from the Big 12. And Iowa St, would probably happily join the Pac 12 at that time. And Big 12 would probably be ok with that. And getting Iowa St would also probably help PAC 12 get a slightly better media deal.

4. Then the PAC 12 actually then does get a better media deal done, finalized, etc, instead of wrongfully, stupidly trying to get a WORSE media deal done now BEFORE that. That is a big mistake the PAC leadership is making, because if the Pac does a bad media deal now, the PAC will not be able to get, attract good expansion candidates, and because of that's won't be able to do a joint alliance media deal with ACC. The PAC has to sell the if you join the PAC, you as part of the PAC will get a better media deal. If the PAC does not do that, and instead does a bad media deal and then tries to expand, good luck with that. The PAC 12 would be more likely to lose conference members, then gain conference members.

5. Then after that, at the right, good timing. Preferably when the ACC, SEC, BIG 10, are slicing 1 Big 12 team at a time from the Big 12, thus weakening the Big 12, THEN the PAC 12 swoops in and grabs, gets Texas Tech, which altho the Big 12, wont like it, they might probably not fight to keep Texas Tech.

Then 1,2,3 years later, Pac 12 gets KSU, from Big 12.

It's kind of like the adage of slow boiling a frog. The frog is the Big 12. If turn up the heat, ever so slowly, just barely by skin of teeth nibbling on the Big 12 frog by having the Big 10, SEC, ACC, even the Pac 12, take turns taking 1 Big 12 team, and if the Big 12 teams that PAC gets are Iowa St to start, then Texas Tech later, then KSU later, the Big 12, might probably be like a extremely slowly, slow boiled frog, that doesn't stop the Pac 12 from raiding it a little tiny insignificant little tiny bit piecemeal Iowa St type piece at a time.

If the Pac 12 does, follows this plan, then the PAC 12 can get SDSU, SMU/UNLV, Iowa St, Texas Tech, KSU, TCU, Baylor, Ok St, from the Big 12, by, within about 6 years to 12 years to 18 years, and the Big 12 will die, be dead.

And it has to start with getting SDSU, SMU/UNLV, Iowa St FIRST.

There is no way in HELL that the PAC 12 is going to get anybody else from the Big 12, unless the Pac 12 does something similar to this outline, OR IF the SEC, BIG 10, ACC Gobble up the Big 12 before it raids the Pac 12, and leaves the geographically fitting teams, and or scraps of Big 12 left to the Pac 12

Aside from this the Pac 12 is NOT going to be able to waltz into the Big 12, in the next 3 to 6 to 9 months, and start cherry picking the best teams out of the Big 12 like Ok St, etc.

Anybody who think the Pac 12 can raid anybody from the Big 12, other then Iowa St, AT THIS TIME, is DELUSIONAL.

 

[Wazzubrooz]

Maybe try and convince Nebraska and OkSt to come to Pac-12? Travel would undoubtedly suck but no more than any other. Just a couple extra hours or less flying time. Also get TTU at the same time then throw in like SDSU or UNLV?

Not enough $ for them to leave BigTen for the PAC. This will never happen.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Maybe try and convince Nebraska and OkSt to come to Pac-12? Travel would undoubtedly suck but no more than any other. Just a couple extra hours or less flying time. Also get TTU at the same time then throw in like SDSU or UNLV?

Gawd you are stupid. Stay in Spain.