There was a thread last week about the California governor raising a stink about UCLA leaving the Pac-12; thread quickly got hijacked and was shut down. But I think one point was missed at that time, including by me. The governor is not just a politician grandstanding in this case. He is also a member (and president) of the UC Board of Regents, unlike the Arkansas arrangement and most other states I know of. And I would expect the regents to have questions if one system school is leaving the flagship school, in this case, high and dry. Especially since the regents apparently were not kept in the loop.
So I’m wondering about this scenario:
- Regents listen to what UCLA has to say and then tell UCLA they can’t leave unless Cal-Berkeley gets to go too.
- Kevin Warren says, ok, we’re not going to let this bunch in California tell us when and how much to expand, so they’re not taking Cal.
- UCLA backs out of the B1G invite because of the Regents’ decision. But USC is still going.
- So Kevin Warren says, okay, then we’ll take Stanford as our 16th team. Or Notre Dame.
Plausible? I dunno.
If Newsom really thought that the Regents could block it, and if he really wanted to do so, don’t you think there would have been some more significant further news in the last few days? The echoes from the table-pounding have died out, and there has been zero further action or even rumors of contemplated action.by the Regents or by other outraged Berkley alums.
Is that because the Big Ten is negotiating to make them members? Maybe, they sure need more West Coast teams. It’s probably just as likely that the Regents’ lawyers have told them they can’t stop the move, or there aren’t enough votes on the Board to do what the lawyers told them might block the move.
Sometimes regents could care less about athletics. I have no clue about much in California and don’t care to learn. I can finish my years without going there again. Two of my seven trips there were on my way to Cabo or Maui. A good excuse.
I think the point of his little tirade was to get UCLA to keep the regents informed. That could very well be happening behind the scenes now. Which makes perfect sense to me. If JFB had taken us to the SEC without consulting or informing the UA BOT, they would have at least wanted to know why. My scenario is more if they give the regents the info they want and then the regents don’t like what they hear.
It’s also plausible/likely that UCLA says “look, our athletic program was $100 million in debt and we needed to do something major to fix that, and this was it,” and the regents say “gotcha.”
This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.