| NEWS USC and UCLA Leaves Pac-12 to Join Big Ten in 2024

['65 Cobra]

I dont know.....but the University’s system is not owned and operated by the school president or AD.... they report to a higher authority....

And there MAY be a lot of universities....and i dont really know....but i doubt they all fall under one BOD....

The "university of California " is a system.... and MAYBE those schools fall under one BOD.... UC @ LA.... UC @ Berkley....UC @Davis....etc..


Thats my only point.... but may be off base

There are about two dozen. Some have Cal/UC in the name (UC Berkely, UCLA, Cal Poly, California State University at Chico, etc.), some don't (Fresno State, Sacramento State, Humboldt, San Diego State, San Jose State, San Francisco State, etc.). It's a Board of Regents, but the University Presidents have a great deal of autonomy to carve their own unique footprint, though I'm sure there are broad state guidelines.

 

[TerryP]

But the school is more than an athletic department

I don't understand. The school isn't going anywhere. And frankly, I don't believe we can look at UCLA's athletic department under the lens of the California school system. While it's literally not, figuratively is a separate entity from the academic side of things at UCLA—sans relying on the academic side for subsidies to meet their shortfalls with revenue.

The idea they should get approval is rooted in the same issues we see with college football: smaller programs and their leaders making decisions for more powerful programs. Eight of the ten schools in the CA system are part of the P5: it's arguable Cal doesn't belong.

From the fan's side...

UCLA and Cal traditionally play each other in the last game of the regular season. But their rivalry isn't with Cal as we know. I can remember last years game (line was WAY off) and the attendance was right at 40% of capacity. The game was described as "chilly." It was 70 degrees. Point being ... I'm not seeing a loss there either.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

On a different angle, WSJ ponders how California state funds can fund trips to deplorable states in the Big 10:

UCLA’s Big Ten Story​

The school claims that athletic contests in states on California’s banned list will be voluntary for coaches, staff and players.

Recently this column wondered how the University of California, Los Angeles could comply with state law and also pursue its plan to compete in the Big Ten athletic conference. California’s woke politicians have essentially attempted to cancel 22 states—and counting—because these states have decided not to mimic California law on such issues as transgender policy. Golden State taxpayer dollars cannot be used to fund travel to the allegedly deplorable states and state entities like UCLA cannot require employees to travel to them. Currently three of the banned states are home to Big Ten schools. How will UCLA comply with California’s intolerance for the free political choices made by voters in these states? The school is now claiming that even highly paid coaches will be showing up on a strictly voluntary basis when their teams play some of the biggest games of the year. If the emerging UCLA policy stands, California pols will continue to insult the voters in states like Ohio, Indiana and Iowa but will not let the official enmity stand in the way of joining with these states to grab big piles of money generated by college athletes. Will leftists even be willing to count this as a virtue signal? Such signals would seem worthless if one cannot explain how they are supposed to be virtuous. Recently Jon Wilner, whose work appears in the the San Jose Mercury News, raised the question of how UCLA could comply with the law known as AB 1887 and play away games in the targeted states. Mr. Wilner reported: Here’s the response (via email) from Scott Markley, the Bruins’ senior associate athletic director for communications: “... Should UCLA compete or recruit in a banned state, in compliance with the law, none of the costs for travel to that state will come from state funds. In addition, if a team competes in a banned state, student-athletes and staff will receive education about the relevant California law, the law at issue in the destination state and given the choice to opt out of the travel with no risk of consequence.” It must be nice running a government institution and being free to create an alternative private funding source when compliance with government rules is too onerous. As for the ability to opt out of the games in banned states, can a football coach on the bubble really choose not to show up when his team plays Ohio State?