I'm shocked they didn't even discuss it with the Board of Regents. Doubt anything will happen, but it would be hilarious if the board of regents blocked the move.
Gov. Newsome throwing a wrench in UCLA move to B10
- Thread starter NDinNJ
- Start date
I'm shocked they didn't even discuss it with the Board of Regents. Doubt anything will happen, but it would be hilarious if the board of regents blocked the move.
Needom. the name alone conveys success and all that’s right Unquestionably a great leader I do wish I had his hair. He could fix rubrics cube.
I'm shocked they didn't even discuss it with the Board of Regents. Doubt anything will happen, but it would be hilarious if the board of regents blocked the move.
Newsome's not going to block anything unless he agrees to come up with north of $100 million dollars to bail out the athletic department.
UCLA was smart. As they say, it's easier to ask for forgivness than permission. The fewer crooked politicians that knew about this the better (for UCLA).
I said doubt anything will come if it. Again you should learn to read the entire post.
Although the UCLA athletic budget is deep in the red, it is still less than 1% of the overall school budget. Newsome is butt hurt that he wasn't consulted and blind sided by the news, but I don't recall him being overly involved with athletics in the past. And just like when ACC commish John Swofford lazily did nothing when everyone knew that Maryland was losing lots of money which led them to the Big Ten, Newsome dropped the ball on providing any leadership for UCLA' s athletic budget deficit. He wasn't concerned about the deficit, but now he is concerned about the solution. And here is the reason....
.....There more than that going on here than just money. Although the Big Ten led the way to cancel the 2020 season, they still had some members that protested what Kevin Warren did. But the PAC 12 folded like a wet napkin with no pushback. Maryland needed a financial lifeline in 2012; USC wanted a cultural lifeline and UCLA tagged along.
To be successful in big boy college football, UCLA and USC figured out that the PAC 12 didn't have the culture for long term growth in where the sport was going. Newsome is going to try to fight that narrative.
.....There more than that going on here than just money. Although the Big Ten led the way to cancel the 2020 season, they still had some members that protested what Kevin Warren did. But the PAC 12 folded like a wet napkin with no pushback. Maryland needed a financial lifeline in 2012; USC wanted a cultural lifeline and UCLA tagged along.
To be successful in big boy college football, UCLA and USC figured out that the PAC 12 didn't have the culture for long term growth in where the sport was going. Newsome is going to try to fight that narrative.
I read it. That's why I wrote the second papagraph. "The fewer crooked politicians that knew about this the better (for UCLA)."
If they would have brought this up with the Board of Regents, there would have been so many leaks and people with their own agendas that the Big Ten would have invited Stanford.
Neither Newsome or the Board of Regents has the ability to stop the deal. That power lies with UCLA as the President of the Board of Regents has already explained. . They could try to force UCLA to share revenue with Cal, but I doubt they will.
"UCLA leadership informed [University of California] President [Dr. Michael] Drake that discussions between UCLA and the Big Ten were occurring but he was not involved at all in those discussions or in any negotiations," a spokesperson for the University of California Office of the President told ESPN in an email. "... Decisions related to athletics are formulated and executed at the campus level. There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President." From ESPN.
www.espn.com
"UCLA leadership informed [University of California] President [Dr. Michael] Drake that discussions between UCLA and the Big Ten were occurring but he was not involved at all in those discussions or in any negotiations," a spokesperson for the University of California Office of the President told ESPN in an email. "... Decisions related to athletics are formulated and executed at the campus level. There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President." From ESPN.
Calif. governor asks UCLA to explain Pac-12 exit
California governor Gavin Newsom said Wednesday he demands an explanation, on behalf of the public, for just how UCLA's move to the Big Ten will be beneficial for not just student-athletes but the history of the partnership with UC Berkeley.
Last edited:
Stop right there....
College athletics is trying to be the epitome of trendy kings
Look at coaches as example.
Coach A could come in and run old school power football. Wishbone, power I, single wing...whatever.
Coach B comes in and runs the trendy spread/zone read stuff....
If coach A loses...it's because the offense is antiquated and he get's fired.
If coach B loses it's we'll get em' next year with better players and has an employment leash of several years.
USC's problem is they've been trying to find Pete Caroll part II.
No move will help them.
The right coach...things click...it's back to the top.
Has absolutely positively nothing to do with a culture.
UCLA wants to sign away state property, the media rights. The Board of Regents could absolutely stop them if they took swift decisive action. They could fire the UCLA President tomorrow.Neither Newsome or the Board of Regents has the ability to stop the deal. That power lies with UCLA as the President of the Board of Regents has already explained. . They could try to force UCLA to share revenue with Cal, but I doubt they will.
"UCLA leadership informed [University of California] President [Dr. Michael] Drake that discussions between UCLA and the Big Ten were occurring but he was not involved at all in those discussions or in any negotiations," a spokesperson for the University of California Office of the President told ESPN in an email. "... Decisions related to athletics are formulated and executed at the campus level. There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President." From ESPN.
Calif. governor asks UCLA to explain Pac-12 exit
California governor Gavin Newsom said Wednesday he demands an explanation, on behalf of the public, for just how UCLA's move to the Big Ten will be beneficial for not just student-athletes but the history of the partnership with UC Berkeley.
Sorry but if you don't think the culture of a conference impacts the overall success of its teams, I question if we are watching the same sport.
Don't mistake data points for the big picture. "it just means more" is one pretty accurate reason why sec has become so dominant. Prioritization has consequences. Little things add up.
ol Gruesome is delusional about many things; including his actual influence.
This is just a PR ploy to get more attention.
This is just a PR ploy to get more attention.
While Newsome may be the Regent Prez or similar, I'd imagine he's got far greater priorities to help a State which is one of the most poorly managed in the country. I fail to see how this will benefit him politically but guess distraction is a good way to deflect. I'd venture a guess, his constituents could care less about what UCLA does from an athletics standpoint. GO IRISH!
Hasn’t UCLA already “signed away” over $100 million dollars in “state property” by putting their athletic department in extreme financial debt?? And now, the California Board of Regents would “fire the UCLA President” for actually finding a way to pay that debt off??
That’s SOOOOOO 2022 California in a nutshell. 🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂
Say what you will. If you look at the last election, Gavin Newsome has a very very high overall approval rating in California, despite his vocal minority who despise him. And frankly, he speaks for all UC’s, which are public institutions, not just UCLA.
He’s also highly rumored to run for President in possibly 2024, certainly 2028.
Help me out here.
Has Newsome come up with an alternative plan to bail out UCLA without having to gut their athletic programs? He must be fully aware of the debt issues, him being on top of things as he is. This issue didn’t just pop up over night.
And meanwhile, the city of Chicago experienced yet more gang violence last night. There are problems in numerous places.
HAAA!!! You tell me this guy wants to run for President of The United States of America, and I have to tell him what to say about one of his state run colleges that is over $100 million in debt????
OK. I tell UCLA “Thanks for getting rid of that freakin debt”. 🙂
It’s a one Party State and the Party establishment selected Newsome to be Governor nearly ten years ago when he was selected to run for Lieutenant Governor under Jerry Brown. Succession was planned and successfully executed, with no viable opposition within the Party. There is no viable opposition from the hugely minority Republican Party, and no one within the Democrat Party will challenge or even criticize the incumbent, nor will the media. That’s California politics today. If Kamala Harris had been selected ten years ago to run for Lieutenant Governor instead of Newsome, she would likely have very very high approval ratings in California as well. I personally believe the PLAN has always been for him to run for President in 2024 after Trumps “second term”, but Biden winning and selecting Harris as his VP derailed this. Now that Biden is struggling and Harris looks unelectable, Newsome is once again in play.
Like I said, Gavin Newsome enjoys partisan popularity in California. Spin that any way you wish.
That just isn't the way the UC systems is set up. The campuses have certain powers, and the regents have certain powers. If they fired the President for doing something within his powers and which will bring in a 100 million a year to a school in debt, they would face a major lawsuit and a massive loss of doner support. Most UCLA donors favor the move.
Latest rumor is that the Big Ten has invited ND to join the Big Ten together with Stanford. That's not exactly illogical, but it's hard to find validation this morning. I am just passing along what I read. The source isn't a crazy person; he has nailed a few things....like the USC-UCLA move to the Big Ten.
Brady Quinn said recently on Fox Radio that Notre Dame will not be making any future decision for around 2 years.
We will see.
I have heard and read that as well. The validation is that conferences will do anything to get ND. By picking Standford they get the bay area market (remember that California is about the size of Great Briton, so the markets vary) and for ND they get a strong academic partner who they already play every year. This in effect gives them a conference game in a slot they would use anyway.
They get the Bay Area market? Were you serious?
Stanford Football has little to no market.
citation needed
And the lawsuit would be dismissed because he is a public official who can be dimissed without a reason.
btw I don't think Newsome will do anything more than make speeches to set up his political ambitions. Actually his #1 political problem is that no one in middle america likes him. Meddling in the BUG10 would destroy his slim chances of becoming president.
When you look at all the stupid things he has said and done its clear how much a Democrat Plantation
california is.
I mean this is the moron that said
"IF you are in a restaurant eating keep your mask on; take it off to take a bite then put it back on..."
I mean REALLY how stupid can you get?
Here's one https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ayers-football-basketball-big-ten/6576342001/
m
another. could do this all day but google is your friend.
College Athletic Debt Soars as Power 5 Programs Resist Scrutiny
As the costs of doing business at Power Five school soar, athletic department debt is ballooning, writes Illinois professor Michael LeRoy.
www.sportico.com
and another:
Do Colleges Make Money From Athletics? | BestColleges
Although college sports play a big role in bringing in money for universities, they rarely generate a positive net revenue.
www.bestcolleges.com
That isn't true. The President of UCLA has a contract. He is not an at-will employee. In general California has an "at-will" rule meaning anyone can be fired for anything other than improper reasons, such as race. This rule does not apply to persons with contracts.
Your other posts also miss the pint. It is the UCLA athletic department that is in the hole. The reason football doesn't "make money" for schools is that schools use football revenue to support the other sports. Without that support they would make the school lose money.
I am a little confused by this. Is your argument that there is no benefit for taking in an extra 50 per million a year? If so, could you find some support from your friend google for this amazing proposition? I am sure all the programs fighting to get into the conference with the most tv money would love to learn that there is no benefit.
Here's one https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ayers-football-basketball-big-ten/6576342001/
m
another. could do this all day but google is your friend.
College Athletic Debt Soars as Power 5 Programs Resist Scrutiny
As the costs of doing business at Power Five school soar, athletic department debt is ballooning, writes Illinois professor Michael LeRoy.
Thank you. I would not call that 'an athletic department operating at a loss.' From the first link the University of Illinois wants expensive new buildings and lavish renovations of the ones they already have. So UI is taking on debt to do more building. and I suspect paying themselves nice bonuses in the deal. That is probably true of every major university. And the author discussing what passes for 'oversight' explains why.
@beach please read my posts before you reply to me.
By asking that question you proved you would never understand the answer since it requires common sense...
However I will say if he had a brain in his head he would have said NOTHING that stupid.
But then you sound like you are just as stupid....
The sensible thing to say is what just about EVERYONE ended up doing which was wear the mask into the restaurant; take it off to eat your meal and then put it on to leave.
Is that too hard for you to understand? Probablyis.
