(10-27-2022 12:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 11:59 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 11:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 10:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 10:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Even if this were to occur, the legal principle of apparent authority would apply: parties to any contract enter into it in reliance on each party having the authority to enter such contract. Most basic corporate contracts will have a boilerplate clause that each party explicitly represents that it has the authority to enter into the agreement to hammer home that point. So, the fact that the person signing a document didn’t actually have the authority to sign on behalf of that party doesn’t matter - the other parties can still enforce the terms of that contract against that “unauthorized” party as long as it was reasonable to believe that person had that authority.

In the case of the UC Regents hypothetically blocking UCLA, everyone needs to understand that while that might block UCLA from the *action* of joining the Big Ten itself, it does NOT unwind or negate any of the contracts that UCLA signed with the Big Ten. The Big Ten can certainly enforce and collect damages on all of the contracts that UCLA signed in the exact same manner as if UCLA actually was authorized. It would be virtually impossible to have an agreement that was signed by a university president and reviewed by the university legal department and try to argue that it wasn’t reasonable that there wasn’t apparent authority for the university to sign the agreement (and I’d be shocked if there wasn’t an explicit representation to that effect in the contract itself).

Essentially, if the UC Regents say that UCLA can’t go to the Big Ten, what they’re doing is telling UCLA to breach all of its agreements with the Big Ten. (That in and of itself makes it even more unlikely that a blocking would occur - a government entity explicitly and actively breaching multiple high value contracts isn’t something that they do no matter how much people think politicians are crazy.)

That would be the same for a GOR agreement or any other conference-related agreement, for that matter. Even if you were to try to argue that a university president somehow didn’t have authority to sign a GOR agreement, it doesn’t matter based on the principle of apparent authority. All of the other parties can enforce the GOR terms because they reasonably relied upon everyone having such authority when signing the agreement.

At the same time, the authority for what public universities in California can sign is different than the authority for what public universities in Florida or North Carolina or anywhere else would be. Even if California were to take away certain authorities from university presidents, that has no bearing on any other states. That is completely within the realm of state-by-state procedures - there’s no federal-level signing authority standard if that’s what you’re looking for.

Just precedent Frank. That's all I'm looking for. To date no State School's signing of a GOR has been challenged.

I know your argument is that the contracts would be enforceable. But, prior to the sports GOR's of State Schools 10-12 years ago they weren't the norm. They haven't been challenged, largely because the amount of money that was involved when they were first invoked by conferences wasn't enough to bother to take it to court. Things have changed. Prior to that the use of GOR's was largely confined to private contracts.

Now we have taxpayer supported state schools which by virtue of the GOR find themselves constrained to make moves which could impact the schools over half a billion dollars in 14 years.

I think it's time they are tested. If they lose, then taxpayers will know that they have to hold their appointed officials accountable by ballot box for the elected officials who delegated such authority. Now if they win we have a whole new day.

What's more NIL has changed the nature of things as they apply to the relationship of athlete to school and school to amateurism. Should the Supreme Court rule favorably in a Pay for Play suit it changes to an even larger and definitive degree. Remedy to the taxpayers should be considered as the nature of the original contracts will have changed, especially for the ACC which has a contract which has not been updated to the present reality.

Thanks however for a solid presentation on what would be involved with regard to California's stonewalling the UCLA move. Fascinating implications are entailed.

Like you however, and as stated in the post you cited, I expect it to be worked out.

Ultimately, it's the choice of each state or public university. A Board of Trustees/Regents can be as micromanaging as they want or they can be totally hands-off. There's no real right or wrong there from a legal perspective.

Putting aside whether GOR agreements are enforceable or not, if I'm just looking at it from a typical corporate board of directors context, that just doesn't *seem* like the type of agreement that would rise to a board level review. Ultimately, it's an IP license grant and that's typically not a board-level matter. A corporation or public university is going to have lots of contracts that are effectively in the same realm of financial impact as a GOR agreement (e.g. construction contracts for buildings on campus) and there are a lot of places where a board won't be required to review it unless it's a "We're going bankrupt if this goes south" type of financial risk.

Now, I will say that a conference change *does* seem to be the type of decision that would be a board-level matter. It's a long-term strategic decision that's akin to M&A activity, which is certainly what boards are required to approve in most organizations. Frankly, from the very beginning, I was surprised that UCLA's legal counsel determined that they could move to the Big Ten without any UC Board of Regents approval. In that sense, I don't know if California would actually be breaking any norms here if they change their authorization procedures - if anything, it might be just getting the authority of their UC Regents over conference moves in line with how other states are already doing it.

It seemed to have surprised other states too -

https://m.kusports.com/news/2022/sep/16/...er-school/

Does the fact that Kansas decided that they needed to clarify that suggest that maybe there's an issue in the California situation?

I have full faith that UCLA counsel reviewed the law and authority and came to what they sincerely believed to be the correct conclusion that they could move without telling the UC Regents (much less get their approval). I've worked with enough of these types of organizations to know that they would have checked that authority question up, down, and all around with what they believed to be 100% certainty.

What the UC Regents seem to be trying to do is assert authority retroactively by arguing the intent of their regulations as opposed to what the regulations actually state. Essentially, the Regents want to say UCLA didn't follow the "spirit" of the regulations even though they actually followed the text of the regulations. This seems to be more about making a political argument than a legitimate legal argument at the end of the day.

I'm sure many states and universities, including Kansas as you've noted here, are reevaluating what exactly schools need to do (if anything) regarding who has to approve a conference move. That's really what the California situation has driven here.

Interesting.

Well, I found the minutes of the Kansas follow-up meeting

https://www.kansasregents.org/resources/...5_2022.pdf

Just copying the section that it's noted:

Quote:AGENDA
Board Governance Committee
Wednesday, September 14, 2022
8:45 - 10:00
Kathy Rupp Conference Room
I. APPROVE MINUTES FROM May 18, 2022
II. REVIEW AND ADOPT AGENDA TOPICS/ SCHEDULE FOR THE YEAR
III. CONSIDER 2022-2023 GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE TOPICS
A. GOV 23-05, Review Board Member COI Disclosures and Make Recommendations to
Address any Actual or Perceived Conflicts
B. GOV 23-09 Review proposed revisions to Board policy not being worked by another Board
Committee
1. Policy on changing athletic conferences
C. GOV 23-03, Review CEO Assessment Process and Recommend Changes as Needed
D. GOV 23-08, Consider Requests for Board President/CEO to Execute Board Contracts
1. Contract for online application system for private postsecondary institutions seeking a
certificate of approval to operate in Kansas
E. GOV 23-02, Monitor Building a Future Progress; Receive Update

Other topics had more play-by-play info. This apparently just rated a single line in the agenda.

Article from yesterday’s LA Times about what UCLA and USC can learn from Hawaii about coping with long-distance travel:

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/202...vel-hawaii

With all that B1G cash to pay for charter flights the Bruins and Trojans will be fine.

(10-26-2022 09:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 09:37 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Just curious:

At this point, does anybody out there think that there is over a 50% chance that UCLA ends up not joining the B10?

Seriously, this could wind up being an interesting test case on just how independent state schools are permitted to operate without state approval first. If the State of California can rescind UCLA's intended move, I think it raises some fascinating questions about who has the right to sign a GOR? Do presidents have the right, or should approval by the governing body of the state become the norm prior to any contractual obligation by a state sponsored institution?

I'm not sure any other state would risk having both schools in an economic wasteland, but California is unique right now in a state government which acts as though their power is centralized rather than delegated.

Outside of my interest in how this angle could play out, I think agreements will be reached for Cal and the issues will go away. But at what rate of initial pay inside the Big 10 is likely the sticking point. My bet is Newsome wants no buy ins and the numbers just won't let the Big 10 do that, unless an alternate monetary source materializes, and that could be Amazon. We'll see.

But the strategist in me would love to see Newsome go to the mat and win because I think that would destroy the delegated authority of school presidents to agree to a GOR and would require the legislative body to approve it instead. That one thing could alter all existing GOR's if the State of California is upheld.

I said a few weeks ago that I hope Newsom blocks UCLA, not out of any malice towards UCLA but out of a desire to see this place blow up for months afterwards.

(10-26-2022 11:26 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 09:11 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 06:57 PM)46566 Wrote:  I'm not a fan of the move but understand it's a money earner for the schools. We'll see if people turn out for home games against Iowa, Rutgers and northwestern compared to Washington State, Oregon State and Cal. I personally think it's a mistake especially when no one else left the PAC 12 with them. At least having Cal and Stanford with you keeps local rivalry games and less travel for 3 games a season for football and 6 games in basketball.

You consider Cal and Stanford local rivalries?

Dude, it's realistically a 7-8 hour drive to get to Stanford or Cal. To go play in front of an empty stadium and normally bad teams. And why would we suddenly stop playing these teams in basketball?

I'm sorry but I would rather get on a plane to go watch a game against Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State, Iowa, Wisconsin, than literally any team in the PAC.

Even if it is a shorter trip I still have to get a hotel and I still have to sit inside of a airport for hours. So if I'm going to do all that I want to at least enjoy the game.

I think if your leadership were not so bunch of snobs, and look at the whole picture, and the academics boards stop hiring IVY League leadership as Presidents? PAC 12 would have a strong SEC conference when they could have added a school like a Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Hawaii, UNR, New Mexico type schools when they were winning, and for UC system schools dropping football? You might have schools like UC-Santa Barbara, UC-Riverside, UC-San Diego as options to joined as well.

You forgot (throws a couple darts) UC-Merced, Allen High School, and San Jacinto Jr College.

Hint: those schools you listed would not have turned the pac into a "strong SEC conference", they would have turned it into the MWC.

(10-26-2022 11:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 10:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 10:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 09:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 09:37 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Just curious:

At this point, does anybody out there think that there is over a 50% chance that UCLA ends up not joining the B10?

Seriously, this could wind up being an interesting test case on just how independent state schools are permitted to operate without state approval first. If the State of California can rescind UCLA's intended move, I think it raises some fascinating questions about who has the right to sign a GOR? Do presidents have the right, or should approval by the governing body of the state become the norm prior to any contractual obligation by a state sponsored institution?

I'm not sure any other state would risk having both schools in an economic wasteland, but California is unique right now in a state government which acts as though their power is centralized rather than delegated.

Outside of my interest in how this angle could play out, I think agreements will be reached for Cal and the issues will go away. But at what rate of initial pay inside the Big 10 is likely the sticking point. My bet is Newsome wants no buy ins and the numbers just won't let the Big 10 do that, unless an alternate monetary source materializes, and that could be Amazon. We'll see.

But the strategist in me would love to see Newsome go to the mat and win because I think that would destroy the delegated authority of school presidents to agree to a GOR and would require the legislative body to approve it instead. That one thing could alter all existing GOR's if the State of California is upheld.

Even if this were to occur, the legal principle of apparent authority would apply: parties to any contract enter into it in reliance on each party having the authority to enter such contract. Most basic corporate contracts will have a boilerplate clause that each party explicitly represents that it has the authority to enter into the agreement to hammer home that point. So, the fact that the person signing a document didn’t actually have the authority to sign on behalf of that party doesn’t matter - the other parties can still enforce the terms of that contract against that “unauthorized” party as long as it was reasonable to believe that person had that authority.

In the case of the UC Regents hypothetically blocking UCLA, everyone needs to understand that while that might block UCLA from the *action* of joining the Big Ten itself, it does NOT unwind or negate any of the contracts that UCLA signed with the Big Ten. The Big Ten can certainly enforce and collect damages on all of the contracts that UCLA signed in the exact same manner as if UCLA actually was authorized. It would be virtually impossible to have an agreement that was signed by a university president and reviewed by the university legal department and try to argue that it wasn’t reasonable that there wasn’t apparent authority for the university to sign the agreement (and I’d be shocked if there wasn’t an explicit representation to that effect in the contract itself).

Essentially, if the UC Regents say that UCLA can’t go to the Big Ten, what they’re doing is telling UCLA to breach all of its agreements with the Big Ten. (That in and of itself makes it even more unlikely that a blocking would occur - a government entity explicitly and actively breaching multiple high value contracts isn’t something that they do no matter how much people think politicians are crazy.)

That would be the same for a GOR agreement or any other conference-related agreement, for that matter. Even if you were to try to argue that a university president somehow didn’t have authority to sign a GOR agreement, it doesn’t matter based on the principle of apparent authority. All of the other parties can enforce the GOR terms because they reasonably relied upon everyone having such authority when signing the agreement.

At the same time, the authority for what public universities in California can sign is different than the authority for what public universities in Florida or North Carolina or anywhere else would be. Even if California were to take away certain authorities from university presidents, that has no bearing on any other states. That is completely within the realm of state-by-state procedures - there’s no federal-level signing authority standard if that’s what you’re looking for.

Just precedent Frank. That's all I'm looking for. To date no State School's signing of a GOR has been challenged.

I know your argument is that the contracts would be enforceable. But, prior to the sports GOR's of State Schools 10-12 years ago they weren't the norm. They haven't been challenged, largely because the amount of money that was involved when they were first invoked by conferences wasn't enough to bother to take it to court. Things have changed. Prior to that the use of GOR's was largely confined to private contracts.

Now we have taxpayer supported state schools which by virtue of the GOR find themselves constrained to make moves which could impact the schools over half a billion dollars in 14 years.

I think it's time they are tested. If they lose, then taxpayers will know that they have to hold their appointed officials accountable by ballot box for the elected officials who delegated such authority. Now if they win we have a whole new day.

What's more NIL has changed the nature of things as they apply to the relationship of athlete to school and school to amateurism. Should the Supreme Court rule favorably in a Pay for Play suit it changes to an even larger and definitive degree. Remedy to the taxpayers should be considered as the nature of the original contracts will have changed, especially for the ACC which has a contract which has not been updated to the present reality.

Thanks however for a solid presentation on what would be involved with regard to California's stonewalling the UCLA move. Fascinating implications are entailed.

Like you however, and as stated in the post you cited, I expect it to be worked out.

Ultimately, it's the choice of each state or public university. A Board of Trustees/Regents can be as micromanaging as they want or they can be totally hands-off. There's no real right or wrong there from a legal perspective.

Putting aside whether GOR agreements are enforceable or not, if I'm just looking at it from a typical corporate board of directors context, that just doesn't *seem* like the type of agreement that would rise to a board level review. Ultimately, it's an IP license grant and that's typically not a board-level matter. A corporation or public university is going to have lots of contracts that are effectively in the same realm of financial impact as a GOR agreement (e.g. construction contracts for buildings on campus) and there are a lot of places where a board won't be required to review it unless it's a "We're going bankrupt if this goes south" type of financial risk.

Now, I will say that a conference change *does* seem to be the type of decision that would be a board-level matter. It's a long-term strategic decision that's akin to M&A activity, which is certainly what boards are required to approve in most organizations. Frankly, from the very beginning, I was surprised that UCLA's legal counsel determined that they could move to the Big Ten without any UC Board of Regents approval. (To be clear, I don't think UCLA's counsel was wrong or at least I have full faith they checked to make sure they were correct on the law on that point with absolutely certainty as priority #1 as soon as they got word of the move to the Big Ten. They can't help it if the Governor tries to come in and change the rules retroactively.) In that sense, I don't know if California would actually be breaking any norms here if they change their authorization procedures - if anything, it might be just getting the authority of their UC Regents over conference moves in line with how other states are already doing it.

Here's an interesting question: if UCLA has already signed a GoR with the B1G, and their Governor forces them to break the contract, are they then without media rights until 2030? #popcorn

I think that Maryland's experience when leaving the ACC should also be considered. Maryland fans, up to today, were not happy with the move. The athletic department did what it felt best and moved to the Big Ten.

UCLA needs the revenue. The PAC 12 doesn't offer enough revenue to compete nationally.

(10-26-2022 05:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-ucla-move

Dozens of people have told him.

Even though I am obviously a realignment fan, this is one of the few times that I am not going to question Kliavkoff. I actually believe that he is correct. The reason why?? Try Maryland. After Maryland"s move to the B1G was announced, very few, if any, Maryland fans and/or donors supported it, IMO. So, why did they make the move that few liked?? $$$'s. People seem to forget that Maryland gave up home games to FSU just so they earn serious $$'s for their athletic budget. And I believe that the AD , major donors, and the president concluded that unless Maryland got significantly more $$'s, this embarrassing trend was going to become a regular occurrence. Long story short?? As JRsec has said multiple times, football drives the "bus," (athletic department).

So, let's apply this to USCLA (love whoever first came up with that, btw). We know that the Pac-12 spent a lot of $$ on the Pac-12 Network. How much did they actually put into it?? Who knows. But, from everything we have heard, it was a total failure. Now, couple this with what happened during the Covid-19 pandemic, and a very long recession projected for our nation's economy. We now have motive for the move. Would staying in the Pac-12 help with that?? Highly unlikely, IMO. The move to the B1G gets USCLA out of the media "desert" (aka the Pacific Time Zone) and gets USCLA exposure in the Central as well as the very coveted Eastern Time Zone.

(10-26-2022 07:53 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 06:47 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 06:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of USC and UCLA fans were at least ambivalent about the situation. The huge $$ boost will be awesome, but they're not exactly lighting up the PAC in the past 5+ years, and they're about to get turned into ground meat by the B1G in football. They'll both be fine in basketball right away though I expect.

who exactly is going to turn them into ground meat in football? I get Ohio St and Michigan. But besides that?

Exactly. The Big Ten is two programs and a bunch of wannabes. USC, and UCLA don't change that.

Yes, agree with what you're saying, but if we're being honest; is there really any conference outside of the SEC that has more than 2 top tier programs? I think USC will be very competitive and I think you're also saying that. Probably instantly be a top 4 program in the conference.

(10-27-2022 03:11 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 05:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-ucla-move

Dozens of people have told him.

Even though I am obviously a realignment fan, this is one of the few times that I am not going to question Kliavkoff. I actually believe that he is correct. The reason why?? Try Maryland. After Maryland"s move to the B1G was announced, very few, if any, Maryland fans and/or donors supported it, IMO. So, why did they make the move that few liked?? $$$'s. People seem to forget that Maryland gave up home games to FSU just so they earn serious $$'s for their athletic budget. And I believe that the AD , major donors, and the president concluded that unless Maryland got significantly more $$'s, this embarrassing trend was going to become a regular occurrence. Long story short?? As JRsec has said multiple times, football drives the "bus," (athletic department).

So, let's apply this to USCLA (love whoever first came up with that, btw). We know that the Pac-12 spent a lot of $$ on the Pac-12 Network. How much did they actually put into it?? Who knows. But, from everything we have heard, it was a total failure. Now, couple this with what happened during the Covid-19 pandemic, and a very long recession projected for our nation's economy. We now have motive for the move. Would staying in the Pac-12 help with that?? Highly unlikely, IMO. The move to the B1G gets USCLA out of the media "desert" (aka the Pacific Time Zone) and gets USCLA exposure in the Central as well as the very coveted Eastern Time Zone.

The difference now is that I think “normal” fans are a lot more educated and savvier about conference realignment than 10-12 years ago. Maybe UCLA fans will miss playing Stanford, for instance, but they’re also much more likely today to understand the greater picture and power structure of the college sports world compared to when Maryland joined the Big Ten (when what you mainly heard from fans was about losing basketball games with Duke and UNC).

When I first started writing regularly about conference realignment in 2009, part of my motivation was I believed that the mainstream sports media wasn’t looking at the correct issues AT ALL when the Big Ten announced that it was looking to expand. Sportswriters at the time never talked about TV markets or the Big Ten Network, never talked about academic prestige or AAU status, underestimated how much of an allure the Big Ten would be to anyone outside of the SEC (e.g. there was a sincere belief that the Big Ten wouldn’t be able to add anyone from an existing power conference except for maybe the then-Big East), and generally always suggested schools *within* the then-Big Ten footprint (e.g. Cincinnati, Pitt, Iowa State, etc.). With only a few exceptions, the typical sportswriter had absolutely no idea how to deal with the factors that truly drove realignment. This was a true niche industry.

That has changed over the past decade where at least the newer and younger writers in the mainstream media are much better in understanding what matters in realignment and it’s now a front-and-center issue in college sports as opposed to an esoteric niche issue. So, at least in terms of the “normal” fan understanding why realignment happens, they’re much more educated and aware of the financial and power factors involved. It’s not so much that the typical USCLA fan is happy in a guttural sense to leave their rivals, but I think they’re much more likely to understand, “We HAD to make this move.”

(10-26-2022 10:20 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 09:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 08:50 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 06:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of USC and UCLA fans were at least ambivalent about the situation. The huge $$ boost will be awesome, but they're not exactly lighting up the PAC in the past 5+ years, and they're about to get turned into ground meat by the B1G in football. They'll both be fine in basketball right away though I expect.

You could not be more wrong.

The vast majority of USC fans are ready to be done with this conference. With UCLA leaving there is literally no reason to remain in the PAC. Because it's full of sub-par programs with MWC level talent, stadiums, and history. And getting beat by them is always an embarrassment.

The problem we face is not being able to provide SEC-like schedules. And recruits who want to play in a tough conference look elsewhere.

Thing is, though, the B1G hasn't been much better than the PAC. Since 2014, the CFP era, and tossing out 2020 for too few games played, according to the MC, the B1G has been better than the PAC four times, the PAC has been better than the B1G three times.

Pretty close, overall. IMO, if you really want SEC-like schedules, you'd have to join the SEC.

James Howell has rated the PAC as the worst power conference in each of the last six seasons. (Including this incomplete season.)

In 2020, he rated the PAC as the worst conference in all of college football. It's doubtful that would have happened in a season with a big sample size of OOC games, but that's still really bad for a power conference to do.

I would agree that the PAC has trended downward since the start of the CFP era. It was stronger the first few years, weaker the last few years. So the trend is downward. Then again, trends can change and often do.

One could argue that this supports USC's case: The PAC fell off between 2015 and 2018. What also happened during that time? SEC and B1G revenues broke away from the other "Ps".

In 2014, the SEC distributed about $21m to its schools. In 2018, the SEC distributed $45m to its schools, a startling increase of over 100%, as the impact of the SECN kicked in.

Similarly, the B1G distributed about $23m to its full-share members. In 2018, the B1G distributed almost $55m as the revenue from its new 2017 TV deals kicked in, again a more than 100% increase and far outpacing other Ps save for the SEC.

The B1G's MC rating has similarly risen during that time. In 2014 - 2016, the MC ranked B1G as 4, 4, and 4 among the P5 conferences in performance. Since 2017, and again throwing out 2020,the B1G has ranked 2, 3, 3 and 3 in the MC list. A clear improvement.

In the same time, the PAC has fallen to the bottom, or near it, in performance. In 2014, a year the PAC was the #2 conference in the MC, the PAC distributed about $20m per school, very close to the SEC and B1G. In 2018, a year it was ranked #5 in performance, it distributed about $32m per school, a nice increase, but now trailing well behind them. Money matters, I guess.

About the issue of the authority of the UCLA admins vs their BOR to make a conference move decision ...

I think it could be that in accepting the B1G invite, the UCLA admins acted within their designated authority to do so, and yet the BOR could possibly overturn the decision anyway.

IIRC, in some organizations, a supervisor might have full authority to make decision A, but that decision may nonetheless be reviewed by their general manager and reversed just because the higher manager disagrees about the correctness of the decision. IOWs, it could be that a conference -move decision has been and is regarded as a "school level" decision, and yet the BOR could still decide to step in in this case and change the decision anyway.

Of course doing that has dangers, it might undermine the practical authority of that supervisor, weaken him/her in the eyes of their underlings, etc. But it could be that the higher authority doesn't necessarily have to show that the lower-level manager exceeded the scope of their authority, etc. to reverse them.

As for whatever contracts have already been signed between UCLA and the B1G, IANAL, but I would assume that the BOR changing the decision would not absolve UCLA of any contract obligations such as exit fees, and that the BOR would know this and make the decision to reverse with the knowledge that UCLA would be liable for penalties associated with breaking those contracts.

But of course I could be wrong about all of this.

(10-27-2022 08:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ...
But of course I could be wrong about all of this.

That really should be the sig line for everyone on CSNBBS.

(10-27-2022 07:47 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 03:11 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 05:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-ucla-move

Dozens of people have told him.

Even though I am obviously a realignment fan, this is one of the few times that I am not going to question Kliavkoff. I actually believe that he is correct. The reason why?? Try Maryland. After Maryland"s move to the B1G was announced, very few, if any, Maryland fans and/or donors supported it, IMO. So, why did they make the move that few liked?? $$$'s. People seem to forget that Maryland gave up home games to FSU just so they earn serious $$'s for their athletic budget. And I believe that the AD , major donors, and the president concluded that unless Maryland got significantly more $$'s, this embarrassing trend was going to become a regular occurrence. Long story short?? As JRsec has said multiple times, football drives the "bus," (athletic department).

So, let's apply this to USCLA (love whoever first came up with that, btw). We know that the Pac-12 spent a lot of $$ on the Pac-12 Network. How much did they actually put into it?? Who knows. But, from everything we have heard, it was a total failure. Now, couple this with what happened during the Covid-19 pandemic, and a very long recession projected for our nation's economy. We now have motive for the move. Would staying in the Pac-12 help with that?? Highly unlikely, IMO. The move to the B1G gets USCLA out of the media "desert" (aka the Pacific Time Zone) and gets USCLA exposure in the Central as well as the very coveted Eastern Time Zone.

The difference now is that I think “normal” fans are a lot more educated and savvier about conference realignment than 10-12 years ago. Maybe UCLA fans will miss playing Stanford, for instance, but they’re also much more likely today to understand the greater picture and power structure of the college sports world compared to when Maryland joined the Big Ten (when what you mainly heard from fans was about losing basketball games with Duke and UNC).

When I first started writing regularly about conference realignment in 2009, part of my motivation was I believed that the mainstream sports media wasn’t looking at the correct issues AT ALL when the Big Ten announced that it was looking to expand. Sportswriters at the time never talked about TV markets or the Big Ten Network, never talked about academic prestige or AAU status, underestimated how much of an allure the Big Ten would be to anyone outside of the SEC (e.g. there was a sincere belief that the Big Ten wouldn’t be able to add anyone from an existing power conference except for maybe the then-Big East), and generally always suggested schools *within* the then-Big Ten footprint (e.g. Cincinnati, Pitt, Iowa State, etc.). With only a few exceptions, the typical sportswriter had absolutely no idea how to deal with the factors that truly drove realignment. This was a true niche industry.

That has changed over the past decade where at least the newer and younger writers in the mainstream media are much better in understanding what matters in realignment and it’s now a front-and-center issue in college sports as opposed to an esoteric niche issue. So, at least in terms of the “normal” fan understanding why realignment happens, they’re much more educated and aware of the financial and power factors involved. It’s not so much that the typical USCLA fan is happy in a guttural sense to leave their rivals, but I think they’re much more likely to understand, “We HAD to make this move.”

Well, considering that Nebraska got kicked out of the AAU something like 9 months after getting invited to the Big 10 (and it was revealed that they had been on some type of probation status in the AAU since about 2000), it seems like sports journalists overrated AAU status if anything.

(10-27-2022 07:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 10:20 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 09:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 08:50 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 06:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of USC and UCLA fans were at least ambivalent about the situation. The huge $$ boost will be awesome, but they're not exactly lighting up the PAC in the past 5+ years, and they're about to get turned into ground meat by the B1G in football. They'll both be fine in basketball right away though I expect.

You could not be more wrong.

The vast majority of USC fans are ready to be done with this conference. With UCLA leaving there is literally no reason to remain in the PAC. Because it's full of sub-par programs with MWC level talent, stadiums, and history. And getting beat by them is always an embarrassment.

The problem we face is not being able to provide SEC-like schedules. And recruits who want to play in a tough conference look elsewhere.

Thing is, though, the B1G hasn't been much better than the PAC. Since 2014, the CFP era, and tossing out 2020 for too few games played, according to the MC, the B1G has been better than the PAC four times, the PAC has been better than the B1G three times.

Pretty close, overall. IMO, if you really want SEC-like schedules, you'd have to join the SEC.

James Howell has rated the PAC as the worst power conference in each of the last six seasons. (Including this incomplete season.)

In 2020, he rated the PAC as the worst conference in all of college football. It's doubtful that would have happened in a season with a big sample size of OOC games, but that's still really bad for a power conference to do.

I would agree that the PAC has trended downward since the start of the CFP era. It was stronger the first few years, weaker the last few years. So the trend is downward. Then again, trends can change and often do.

One could argue that this supports USC's case: The PAC fell off between 2015 and 2018. What also happened during that time? SEC and B1G revenues broke away from the other "Ps".

In 2014, the SEC distributed about $21m to its schools. In 2018, the SEC distributed $45m to its schools, a startling increase of over 100%, as the impact of the SECN kicked in.

Similarly, the B1G distributed about $23m to its full-share members. In 2018, the B1G distributed almost $55m as the revenue from its new 2017 TV deals kicked in, again a more than 100% increase and far outpacing other Ps save for the SEC.

The B1G's MC rating has similarly risen during that time. In 2014 - 2016, the MC ranked B1G as 4, 4, and 4 among the P5 conferences in performance. Since 2017, and again throwing out 2020,the B1G has ranked 2, 3, 3 and 3 in the MC list. A clear improvement.

In the same time, the PAC has fallen to the bottom, or near it, in performance. In 2014, a year the PAC was the #2 conference in the MC, the PAC distributed about $20m per school, very close to the SEC and B1G. In 2018, a year it was ranked #5 in performance, it distributed about $32m per school, a nice increase, but now trailing well behind them. Money matters, I guess.

Somebody provided a chart of power conference revenues since 2000 a few months ago. The PAC has been at the bottom of revenues (even below the ACC) for almost the whole time. The only exception was from about 2011-2013, when the PAC was benefitting from having the most recently signed TV contract.

It really isn't recent that the PAC isn't getting as much money as other conferences.

Dozens of Pac 10 fans probably are not happy. USC UCLA fans are most likely very glad.

(10-26-2022 10:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 09:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 09:37 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Just curious:

At this point, does anybody out there think that there is over a 50% chance that UCLA ends up not joining the B10?

Seriously, this could wind up being an interesting test case on just how independent state schools are permitted to operate without state approval first. If the State of California can rescind UCLA's intended move, I think it raises some fascinating questions about who has the right to sign a GOR? Do presidents have the right, or should approval by the governing body of the state become the norm prior to any contractual obligation by a state sponsored institution?

I'm not sure any other state would risk having both schools in an economic wasteland, but California is unique right now in a state government which acts as though their power is centralized rather than delegated.

Outside of my interest in how this angle could play out, I think agreements will be reached for Cal and the issues will go away. But at what rate of initial pay inside the Big 10 is likely the sticking point. My bet is Newsome wants no buy ins and the numbers just won't let the Big 10 do that, unless an alternate monetary source materializes, and that could be Amazon. We'll see.

But the strategist in me would love to see Newsome go to the mat and win because I think that would destroy the delegated authority of school presidents to agree to a GOR and would require the legislative body to approve it instead. That one thing could alter all existing GOR's if the State of California is upheld.

Even if this were to occur, the legal principle of apparent authority would apply: parties to any contract enter into it in reliance on each party having the authority to enter such contract. Most basic corporate contracts will have a boilerplate clause that each party explicitly represents that it has the authority to enter into the agreement to hammer home that point. So, the fact that the person signing a document didn’t actually have the authority to sign on behalf of that party doesn’t matter - the other parties can still enforce the terms of that contract against that “unauthorized” party as long as it was reasonable to believe that person had that authority.

In the case of the UC Regents hypothetically blocking UCLA, everyone needs to understand that while that might block UCLA from the *action* of joining the Big Ten itself, it does NOT unwind or negate any of the contracts that UCLA signed with the Big Ten. The Big Ten can certainly enforce and collect damages on all of the contracts that UCLA signed in the exact same manner as if UCLA actually was authorized. It would be virtually impossible to have an agreement that was signed by a university president and reviewed by the university legal department and try to argue that it wasn’t reasonable that there wasn’t apparent authority for the university to sign the agreement (and I’d be shocked if there wasn’t an explicit representation to that effect in the contract itself).

Essentially, if the UC Regents say that UCLA can’t go to the Big Ten, what they’re doing is telling UCLA to breach all of its agreements with the Big Ten. (That in and of itself makes it even more unlikely that a blocking would occur - a government entity explicitly and actively breaching multiple high value contracts isn’t something that they do no matter how much people think politicians are crazy.)

That would be the same for a GOR agreement or any other conference-related agreement, for that matter. Even if you were to try to argue that a university president somehow didn’t have authority to sign a GOR agreement, it doesn’t matter based on the principle of apparent authority. All of the other parties can enforce the GOR terms because they reasonably relied upon everyone having such authority when signing the agreement.

At the same time, the authority for what public universities in California can sign is different than the authority for what public universities in Florida or North Carolina or anywhere else would be. Even if California were to take away certain authorities from university presidents, that has no bearing on any other states. That is completely within the realm of state-by-state procedures - there’s no federal-level signing authority standard if that’s what you’re looking for.

And would open up the state to a tortious interference claim from the Big 10.

(10-26-2022 07:06 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Adding schools from outside the region or moving from regions to another outside of the region is excitement because the fans will not travel so far every week for games. At least I talked to some PAC 12 fans including USC and UCLA fans, they would have been happy if the PAC 12 went to 16 when they added Colorado and Utah. They were not too excited about Colorado, but they would have been happy with Hawaii, Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Air Force and UNR. Those schools did bring excitement to games back then as they were very competitive. Colorado was not very competitive, and you could see why that PAC 12 fans are not very supportive of football recently. I do think the big networks and school presidents are shooting themselves in the foot on realignment. The fans are demanding the best products, not how big a tv market it is.

Students at the CA schools could care less about sports in general and you think they are clamoring for adds like Boise, Fresno, and Reno? You've gotta start leaving the house once ina while.

(10-27-2022 09:08 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Dozens of Pac 10 fans probably are not happy. USC UCLA fans are most likely very glad.

I have many friends and family members who work and went to UCLA and USC. Most of them would prefer to stay out west for their games and rivalries but understand the realities of the college athletics landscape. Neither school can pass up the lifeline the B10 is offering, from a financial perspective, and have to go. If the money in the PAC12 was equal to the B10 they would be staying, as it would be an easier path to expanded college football playoff. However, since the money in B10 is going to be significantly more the PAC12 can offer they have to go to have a seat at the big boy table.

(10-26-2022 10:20 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 09:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 08:50 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 06:36 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of USC and UCLA fans were at least ambivalent about the situation. The huge $$ boost will be awesome, but they're not exactly lighting up the PAC in the past 5+ years, and they're about to get turned into ground meat by the B1G in football. They'll both be fine in basketball right away though I expect.

You could not be more wrong.

The vast majority of USC fans are ready to be done with this conference.

The problem we face is not being able to provide SEC-like schedules. And recruits who want to play in a tough conference look elsewhere.

Thing is, though, the B1G hasn't been much better than the PAC.

James Howell has rated the PAC as the worst power conference in each of the last six seasons. (Including this incomplete season.)

I added USC and UCLA to the Big 10 Massey Composite averages to make it apples to apples with the Pac 12 (left USC and UCLA in the Pac 12).

Big 10 is ahead of the Pac 12 in football and basketball every year over the last five years. It was close back in 2018 and 2019 in football. The rest of the time, and particularly in basketball, the Big 10 is comfortably ahead.

But that's not the whole story. Aligning yourself as a West Coast school with a Midwest conference gives your school great visibility in a whole new region of the country.

Further, the Big 10 is a 100-year decision. It will be considered one of the premier college athletic conferences with the SEC for decades to come. The benefits from that will be enormous, not only in TV rights/exposure but by playoff money/access and NCAA tournament bids.

It's a no-brainer, even if there was not much difference in the quality of football several years ago.

In terms of travel costs, I expect those will come down in time when more West Coast schools join the Big 10.

(10-27-2022 09:01 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-27-2022 07:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 10:20 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 09:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2022 08:50 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  You could not be more wrong.

The vast majority of USC fans are ready to be done with this conference. With UCLA leaving there is literally no reason to remain in the PAC. Because it's full of sub-par programs with MWC level talent, stadiums, and history. And getting beat by them is always an embarrassment.

The problem we face is not being able to provide SEC-like schedules. And recruits who want to play in a tough conference look elsewhere.

Thing is, though, the B1G hasn't been much better than the PAC. Since 2014, the CFP era, and tossing out 2020 for too few games played, according to the MC, the B1G has been better than the PAC four times, the PAC has been better than the B1G three times.

Pretty close, overall. IMO, if you really want SEC-like schedules, you'd have to join the SEC.

James Howell has rated the PAC as the worst power conference in each of the last six seasons. (Including this incomplete season.)

In 2020, he rated the PAC as the worst conference in all of college football. It's doubtful that would have happened in a season with a big sample size of OOC games, but that's still really bad for a power conference to do.

I would agree that the PAC has trended downward since the start of the CFP era. It was stronger the first few years, weaker the last few years. So the trend is downward. Then again, trends can change and often do.

One could argue that this supports USC's case: The PAC fell off between 2015 and 2018. What also happened during that time? SEC and B1G revenues broke away from the other "Ps".

In 2014, the SEC distributed about $21m to its schools. In 2018, the SEC distributed $45m to its schools, a startling increase of over 100%, as the impact of the SECN kicked in.

Similarly, the B1G distributed about $23m to its full-share members. In 2018, the B1G distributed almost $55m as the revenue from its new 2017 TV deals kicked in, again a more than 100% increase and far outpacing other Ps save for the SEC.

The B1G's MC rating has similarly risen during that time. In 2014 - 2016, the MC ranked B1G as 4, 4, and 4 among the P5 conferences in performance. Since 2017, and again throwing out 2020,the B1G has ranked 2, 3, 3 and 3 in the MC list. A clear improvement.

In the same time, the PAC has fallen to the bottom, or near it, in performance. In 2014, a year the PAC was the #2 conference in the MC, the PAC distributed about $20m per school, very close to the SEC and B1G. In 2018, a year it was ranked #5 in performance, it distributed about $32m per school, a nice increase, but now trailing well behind them. Money matters, I guess.

Somebody provided a chart of power conference revenues since 2000 a few months ago. The PAC has been at the bottom of revenues (even below the ACC) for almost the whole time. The only exception was from about 2011-2013, when the PAC was benefitting from having the most recently signed TV contract.

It really isn't recent that the PAC isn't getting as much money as other conferences.

Good point, but while the PAC was getting less say in 2004 than other Power conferences, the margins between all of them was small because nobody was making real money.

For example, in 2005, the SEC distributed about $9m per school to its members. So whatever the PAC was distributing, it couldn't have been more than $9m less than what the SEC was distributing and of course it was considerably less than that. The last few years the gap has IIRC been far greater.