“But the Regents began to ask questions because U.C.L.A.’s departure would result in a financial hit for a sister school, the University of California, Berkeley. Its revenue from a Pac-12 television contract would be reduced by millions of dollars because the conference would be losing the Los Angeles market.”
This is a direct quote. On top of that, I know for a certain Carol Christ was blindsided by the news of UCLA departing & they were looking for immediate recourse from the UC Board of Regents. There was even speculation that maybe there was a little bit of favoritism going on b/c there wasn’t an immediate outrage from The UC President, who overlapped w/ UCLA’s AD while they were both at Ohio State.
So:
1. I have no idea why u’re bringing up all those UC Schools, when:
-Not one of them r in the Power 5/4 Conference &
-None of them have D-1 Football programs, & r zero factors in any conference expansion decision, as I stated.
2. I actually have connections, like legit connections which is why I tend to drop Easter eggs all over CIS well b4 chit happens. I live in PAC-12 country, in the heart of PAC-12 country actually, & I’m deeply connected to both SC & UCLA due to infamous alumni that are in my circle.
I know for a certain when UCLA made the move, The Regents were upset primarily for Cal b/c Cal was like ‘WTF; what about us?’ They’ve been at the hip since 1928. The UC HQ in the backyard of Cal, & Newsome immediately wanted to know how all of this would affect Cal. To appease The Regents, UCLA agreed to pay between $2 - $10m to Cal. They now r pushing $10m b/c Cal had to come to the ACC at a discounted rate, not being a full member + Cal has its own financial issues.
In essence, The Regents r trying to punish UCLA b/c Cal is affected due to them not finding suitable financial stability from a conference. If Cal went to the B1G as well, do u actually think The Regents would have an issue of a “courtesy notice?”
Everything u’re stating has already been discussed pages ago, but that’s neither here nor there. At the end of the day, the crux of the matter is about revenue, period. UCLA AD has been operating in the red & the PAC-12 offered zero incentives for UCLA to stay. UCLA athletics have debt upon debt, so yes the move to the B1G was by far the most beneficial. The Regents couldn’t do **** to keep UCLA in the PAC-12 b/c the PAC-12 was a **** stain conference corrupted by **** poor decision makers, so what r u talking about?
U’re acting as if the PAC-12 didn’t just implode on itself. So again, I have no idea regarding any of what u posted.