|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 16, 2022 14:27:25 GMT -5
The general perception around the country, and in particular the B1G, is that Standord is more likely to de-emphasize athletics. This perception largely comes from Standord's decision (later reversed) to eliminate the wrestling program. The B1G is the premiere wrestling conference, so Stanford's attempt to eliminate wrestling certainly got the B1G's attention. It wasn't just the wrestling program. Stanford tried to eliminate 11 programs, including men's volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 16, 2022 14:35:30 GMT -5
So UCLA has to pay "CALimony" to Berkeley? Wow, I'm jealous that I didn't think of this joke. Also, I've been predicting this outcome for months. Turns out the regents do have the authority.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 16, 2022 14:37:25 GMT -5
So how do they "minimize travel" under this plan? At least in VB, start by not playing Indiana on a Wednesday and Purdue on a Sunday. All the matchups with the CA teams should be B2B when CA teams are on the road, and with a travel partner. ie don't play NE followed by OSU either. This is actually why I was hoping for the carnage that would ensue if UCLA didn't get to go. I would have enjoyed watching the Big 10 teams having to fly all the way to LA just to play USC. I guess I'm still pretty pissed off about the Big 10 raiding the PAC-12, especially since they had previously agreed to be allies and not poach each other's teams. Apparently agreements like that only last as long as it is convenient for people to keep their promises, though. It really can't be overstated just how naive Kliavkoff was when he made that "handshake agreement" with Kevin Warren.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 16, 2022 14:59:21 GMT -5
So UCLA has to pay "CALimony" to Berkeley? Wow, I'm jealous that I didn't think of this joke. Also, I've been predicting this outcome for months. Turns out the regents do have the authority. Many are still misunderstanding the legal question(s) at play. There was never any question whether the Regents have the authority. The first issue was whether UCLA had the authority to enter into the contract/agreement to move to the B1G, and that wasn't really in doubt either since there was a written policy delegating the authority back in the early '90's, and several instances where that authority had been used without the Regents being involved. The real issue the Regents had to consider was what would be the ramifications of over-turning UCLA's move to the B1G. And, the ramifications were considerable because they would be intentionally breaching a valid contract. As far as the payments, the Regents have authority over the entire UC budget, and could just as easily allocate the funds directly to Cal. The idea of a "Berkeley" tax is simply a political construction, and not really a wise precedent to set. In the end, I think the Regents will end up finding a way to address the situation through the regular budget allocation process rather than a payment/re-payment scheme between the two campuses.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 16, 2022 15:02:50 GMT -5
Wow, I'm jealous that I didn't think of this joke. Also, I've been predicting this outcome for months. Turns out the regents do have the authority. Many are still misunderstanding the legal question(s) at play. There was never any question whether the Regents have the authority. The first issue was whether UCLA had the authority to enter into the contract/agreement to move to the B1G, and that wasn't really in doubt either since there was a written policy delegating the authority back in the early '90's, and several instances where that authority had been used without the Regents being involved. The real issue the Regents had to consider was what would be the ramifications of over-turning UCLA's move to the B1G. And, the ramifications were considerable because they would be intentionally breaching a valid contract. As far as the payments, the Regents have authority over the entire UC budget, and could just as easily allocate the funds directly to Cal. The idea of a "Berkeley" tax is simply a political construction, and not really a wise precedent to set. In the end, I think the Regents will end up finding a way to address the situation through the regular budget allocation process rather than a payment/re-payment scheme between the two campuses. I can't tell you how many UCLA fans I've seen in the last several months who insisted that the regents couldn't do anything. I always thought it was very unlikely that they would block the move outright, but I thought it was almost as unlikely that UCLA would get off scot free. I thought the "Calimony" scenario was the most likely because it reestablished the clear authority of the regents and penalized UCLA for doing an end run around them while still letting them go.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Dec 16, 2022 15:05:05 GMT -5
I really don't think this is going to work logistically. I wonder about the long term stability of this relationship.
Also, yanking student athletes all around the continent just to snag a few extra TV dollars, or to plant a flag in anticipation of some future possible coalescence of conferences, seems kind of exploitative to me.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 16, 2022 15:12:17 GMT -5
Many are still misunderstanding the legal question(s) at play. There was never any question whether the Regents have the authority. The first issue was whether UCLA had the authority to enter into the contract/agreement to move to the B1G, and that wasn't really in doubt either since there was a written policy delegating the authority back in the early '90's, and several instances where that authority had been used without the Regents being involved. The real issue the Regents had to consider was what would be the ramifications of over-turning UCLA's move to the B1G. And, the ramifications were considerable because they would be intentionally breaching a valid contract. As far as the payments, the Regents have authority over the entire UC budget, and could just as easily allocate the funds directly to Cal. The idea of a "Berkeley" tax is simply a political construction, and not really a wise precedent to set. In the end, I think the Regents will end up finding a way to address the situation through the regular budget allocation process rather than a payment/re-payment scheme between the two campuses. I can't tell you how many UCLA fans I've seen in the last several months who insisted that the regents couldn't do anything. I always thought it was very unlikely that they would block the move outright, but I thought it was almost as unlikely that UCLA would get off scot free. I thought the "Calimony" scenario was the most likely because it reestablished the clear authority of the regents and penalized UCLA for doing an end run around them while still letting them go. I don't consider it an end run when they did something that was clearly within their authority and informed the President of the UC in advance. UCLA misjudged the political reaction to the move, which is a different thing.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 16, 2022 15:15:12 GMT -5
I can't tell you how many UCLA fans I've seen in the last several months who insisted that the regents couldn't do anything. I always thought it was very unlikely that they would block the move outright, but I thought it was almost as unlikely that UCLA would get off scot free. I thought the "Calimony" scenario was the most likely because it reestablished the clear authority of the regents and penalized UCLA for doing an end run around them while still letting them go. I don't consider it an end run when they did something that was clearly within their authority and informed the President of the UC in advance. UCLA misjudged the political reaction to the move, which is a different thing. Eh, that's a distinction without a difference to me, but okay. I call it an end run. You call it...whatever you're calling it. Same thing in my book.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 16, 2022 15:18:17 GMT -5
I don't consider it an end run when they did something that was clearly within their authority and informed the President of the UC in advance. UCLA misjudged the political reaction to the move, which is a different thing. Eh, that's a distinction without a difference to me, but okay. I call it an end run. You call it...whatever you're calling it. Same thing in my book. That's fine, but your book could use some editing.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Dec 16, 2022 15:20:22 GMT -5
I recall reading when this was first announced that USC and UCLA would move to the B1G "no later" than 2024.
Has there been an official update/change regarding that wording?
Because when I see "no later than 2024" I tend to think 2023 is possible. But all the reporting I see now just says 2024.
If they're leaving, I'd like to see it be as soon as possible.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,135
|
Post by trojansc on Dec 16, 2022 15:21:14 GMT -5
I really don't think this is going to work logistically. I wonder about the long term stability of this relationship. Also, yanking student athletes all around the continent just to snag a few extra TV dollars, or to plant a flag in anticipation of some future possible coalescence of conferences, seems kind of exploitative to me. The differences are negligible here. Again, USC used to bus to the Arizona’s. That’s a long bus ride. Flying to midwest states isn’t worse than that. I’ll give you Rutgers might be a trek, but, USC has also gone east coast in the non-conference (as have several PAC teams recently). All in all, there’s many ways to neutralize this travel and when compared in total to previous hours, the difference may not be near as large as people think.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Dec 16, 2022 15:22:37 GMT -5
Eh, that's a distinction without a difference to me, but okay. I call it an end run. You call it...whatever you're calling it. Same thing in my book. That's fine, but your book could use some editing. Lol, I'm a professional editor. Stay in your lane.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 16, 2022 15:26:23 GMT -5
That's fine, but your book could use some editing. Lol, I'm a professional editor. Stay in your lane. I know you are. You're weaving in traffic here.
|
|
|
Post by gobruins on Dec 16, 2022 15:29:30 GMT -5
Wow, I'm jealous that I didn't think of this joke. Also, I've been predicting this outcome for months. Turns out the regents do have the authority. Many are still misunderstanding the legal question(s) at play. There was never any question whether the Regents have the authority. The first issue was whether UCLA had the authority to enter into the contract/agreement to move to the B1G, and that wasn't really in doubt either since there was a written policy delegating the authority back in the early '90's, and several instances where that authority had been used without the Regents being involved. The real issue the Regents had to consider was what would be the ramifications of over-turning UCLA's move to the B1G. And, the ramifications were considerable because they would be intentionally breaching a valid contract. As far as the payments, the Regents have authority over the entire UC budget, and could just as easily allocate the funds directly to Cal. The idea of a "Berkeley" tax is simply a political construction, and not really a wise precedent to set. In the end, I think the Regents will end up finding a way to address the situation through the regular budget allocation process rather than a payment/re-payment scheme between the two campuses. Finally! A poster who knows what they are talking about, and can express it succinctly.
|
|
|
Post by littlerockop on Dec 19, 2022 22:33:33 GMT -5
|
|