So I get an email whenever anyone comments on this article, and I'm starting to get annoyed at the general tenor of conversation here. So I'm going to issue a general warning: if you cannot have a conversation without resorting to name calling or taking pot shots at other users, then maybe you should consider refraining from posting here until you go outside and touch some grass. This is not Twitter, no matter how much you might want to treat it that way.
it's an interesting opinion, but UCLA is not West Virginia, Texas Tech is not Ohio State, and the Big 12 is certainly not the Big 10 (or even the Pac 10). If we were moving to an equal or lesser conference -- like the Big 12 -- I agree. But playing the likes of Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State, Iowa, and Michigan State is not a weekly lower tier bowl game. Sure, games against Rutgers, Purdue, Minnesota, and Indiana will probably feel that way. But what did games against WSU, OSU, and ASU feel like?
Dreams do come true! The only downside is that all the flagship Big 10 schools are in the east division, but I think they are scrapping divisions anyway.
Actually that's exactly what you said. You wrote: "Hearing a lot about the lesser sports like softball and swimming."
As I said previously, no one is required to watch, root for, or even care about UCLA's non-revenue sports. But it isn't useful to pretend that other UCLA fans don't follow these sports and care about the student-athletes and the programs.
Good for them....but nobody watches. Someone made a comment about not walking across the street to view the g-league. I wouldn't walk across the street to watch softball, swimming, or golf. Hope UCLA does ell in those sports, but tbh most people just don't really care. it is what it is
Arizona is not a rival because Arizona has always had a terrible football program. Same reason Cal is not (really) a rival. Trust me, it's going to be a lot more fun talking about "the Ohio State game" "the Michigan game" "the Purdue game" "the fill in the blank game" instead of "the oregon state game" and "the arizona game.
It depends on the sport. Arizona is certainly our top conference rival in Men's Basketball, and arguably in Softball. Cal remains a serious rival in Water Polo. Stanford is our top rival in a number of sports, including Men's & Women's Soccer. I don't see any game against Purdue becoming a rivalry game in any sport any time soon.
uh why would you not want the UCLA basketball team to be chartering flights? How are we supposed to attract recruits when we are flying coach while other programs are not? The men's basketball program brings in a lot of money in its own right. If the women's team can bring in that type of money then they can go ahead and charter flights too.
The point Bruin Gold was making is that there should be an effort to treat all of our student-athletes equally in terms of the support UCLA Athletics provides.
Clearly the marketplace does not treat all sports equally; student-athletes in revenue sports have opportunities that are generally not available to non-revenue student-athletes. I think it is a mistake (and probably violates at least the spirit of Title IX) for a university to provide additional benefits to student-athletes on the basis that those athletes compete in sports that generate more revenue for the university.
why not? And what is "equitable" treatment. That is such a weird word. Such an antiquated way of thinking. Football brings the university millions of dollars. Golf brings in nothing. Gotta make UCLA the most appealing place in the country for recruits in the revenue generating sports to want to come. Or the non-revenue sports will suffer.
UCLA is a university, not a sports empire. As such, it has responsibilities that extend far beyond recruiting student-athletes in pursuit of maximizing revenue for Athletics.
Both the UC system and UCLA have equity policies, as does UCLA Athletics:
"Equity, diversity, and inclusion among our student-athletes, coaches and staff are core values UCLA’s Department of Intercollegiate Athletics (DIA) are committed to and will not compromise."
In terms of equity, part of that is effectively dictated to all universities in the form of Title IX rules and regulations. So even though you insist that "non-revenue sports will suffer" if UCLA doesn't become "the most appealing place in the country for recruits in revenue generating sports," that is simply untrue because UCLA Football depends on the existence of women's sports for its own existence. If UCLA Athletics doesn't maintain functional sports programs of sufficient size and if it doesn't adhere to all rules and regulations under Title IX, then the football program will go away.
For the 2021 fiscal year, UCLA Athletics recorded a deficit of $62.5 million. For the past 3 fiscal years, the deficit is over $100 million.
Football has not been prospering, and it certainly has not been benefitting ALL other UCLA sports. But of course you are welcome to look at itemized revenue and expense figures for UCLA Athletics and demonstrate historically the degree to which non-revenue sports benefit when football prospers.
you really think we are going to stop playing Stanford and Cal?????? It's just not going to be a conference game. Guaranteed we play them EVERY year in basketball, baseball, and all the rest.
Rivalries within a conference are fundamentally different from non-conference rivalries. For example, men's basketball games against Arizona have the potential to impact the conference title race. This happened in Ben Howland's last season at UCLA; we finished first in the Pac-12 that season, a game ahead of Arizona, thanks in part to 2 wins against the Wildcats. Taking the rivalry out of conference generally diminishes the significance of the game.
It happened in this past season in Men's Water Polo. If UCLA had defeated Cal, the Bruins would have caught the Golden Bears in the conference title race to earn a share of first place. Unfortunately, UCLA lost, and Cal won the conference title. That was the final regular season conference game for both teams, so it was both a rivalry game and a conference title decider.
I think the ACC will probably break up. Clemson, Florida State and Notre Dame will be absorbed into either the SEC or Big Ten. Not sure how it works but I'd assume bottom feeder schools like Maryland and Rutgers would be kicked out of their league for not pulling their weight. So basically a two-power conference system which would also mean that the playoff system would be changed.
Except it kind of is - it is an ACC member for all non-football sports and thus would have to either pay a massive exit fee under the ACC Grant of Rights agreement (sorry to keep bring this up!) or somehow get the B1G to accept them as a football-only member while literally every other ND program would still be members of the ACC which is... not super likely to happen
And it's also entirely possible once all this gets down to the end game that ESPN fronts/helps Clemson and Miami/FSU to pay the exit fees to get to the SEC and Fox fronts/helps ND and UNC the money to pay the exit fees to get to the B1G so they can consolidate their TV product in the two megaconferences or otherwise pressures the ACC the way ESPN did the Big12 when Texas & OU left - but someone will have to make that choice and it's likely to take some time since no one wants to be the one to lose that particular game of chicken to make it happen...
Nice try, bud. Educate yourself. “The ACC's new grant of rights also automatically extends Notre Dame's contract with the conference as a member in all sports but football through 2035-36, a source said. If the Irish forgo football independence in the next 20 years, they will be contracted to join the ACC.”
The only reason the ACC hasn't been pillaged yet is their Grant of Rights media agreement under which each school signed over their media rights through 2036... Otherwise, Clemson and likely Free Shoes U would already be in the SEC, North Carolina would have been invited into the B1G yesterday, and Duke would already be the "Gonzaga of the southeast"...
Our Grant of Rights agreement ends in 2024 so that's a big part of the timing of when we move - so we go without any buyout or exit fee plus it allows the B1G to negotiate their new media rights deal with the LA market as part of the package...
Rutgers is all about the NYC/NJ market - they were never invited for their on-field accomplishments...
By the way, I understand "how the world works" but I hate that the explanation of all this makes me sound like a media consultant and not a sports fan who has loved College Football for the vast majority of my life long before I was old enough to go to college!
look for something to happen on Notre Dame soon. This is the last time they can join the Big 10 while dictating some of the terms. Once Big 10 gets new tv deal, all bets are off.
TV is almost always the tail that wags the dog. Given that $C has been making noises about their dissatisfaction with the Pac 12 for a number of months now, Caruso probably did have some role - though no one should be shocked that he would over emphasize it given that he's running for mayor and trying to make political hay - but Fox wanting the LA schools in their B1G to counter ESECPN facilitating Texas and Oklahoma to their SEC is almost certainly the major driver here
do we really deserve credit? I mean look how desperate the other 10 schools are now. If we didn't follow, we'd all be wondering if we'd be in the Mountain West in two years.
I think Caruso and SC also realized that it was a more attractive deal for the Big 10 with UCLA on board. I think that Bohn and Jarmond are very familiar with one another. The league also values their academic reputation as opposed to the SEC. They just added the #1 public school in the country to their mix. The money is needed and is very beneficial for the nob-revenue sports.
IMO, moving to the Big 10 is a poor outcome for our non-revenue sports. For most of these sports, joining the Big 10 is a genuine step down in quality of competition. This applies particularly to sports like softball and baseball, tennis (men's and women's), golf (men's and women's), and soccer (men's and women's).
I do not believe that our non-revenue sports will see any substantial funding benefit from a move to the Big Ten. There is nothing in recent history at UCLA (or elsewhere, frankly) to suggest that revenue boosts significantly benefit non-revenue sports. However, I might be convinced otherwise if UCLA promptly reinstates the men's swimming and men's gymnastics programs that were eliminated in the mid-90s. That said, given the reality of the financial malpractice in the UCLA Athletic Department, it's unlikely that any programs will be revived any time soon.
It appears the interests of the majority of our student-athletes are not clearly well-served by this decision. As expected, UCLA Athletics sets revenue as its priority and largely disregards the principles of its mission statement.
I've tried to quantify the difference in quality of competition between the Pac-12 and Big Ten in baseball and softball by using a crude metric complied over the last 5 years. I've excluded UCLA's and USC's contribution to these indices since (a) the Bruins cannot play themselves and (b) they will continue to play against the Trojans in the Big Ten.
Here are the results for my Quality of Competition (QC) metric (2018-2022):
Pac-12 Baseball (without UCLA & USC): QC = 4.2
Big Ten Baseball: QC = 0.77
Pac-12 Softball (without UCLA): QC = 6.1
Big Ten Softball: QC = 0.89
Those numbers represent pretty substantial differences in quality of competition.
And, as Thuc Nhi Nguyen & Myah Taylor point out in the Times today, it will make it that much harder for UCLA to be in a position to host regionals when the NCAAs come around in both sports since our strength of schedule will be taking a major hit, especially in softball where UCLA is about to become, for want of a better comparison, Gonzaga men's basketball in terms of scheduling - though hopefully not in terms of tourney and championship game performance!
To be honest, I share your skepticism as to whether there will be a funding benefit to our Olympic sports (at least until the department debt is brought down) but, without having their budget numbers in front of me, it certainly seems as if some of the SEC schools that never were powers across their overall programs have been investing much more in multiple sports - while there have always been great individual programs (Alabama/Georgia gymnastics, LSU/Arkansas track...), not only are their examples like Florida softball (0 super regionals before 2007 - 14 since) the depth of quality programs has increased with the flood of revenue the last decade or so... which tells me its a question of institutional will - which I hope we have and employ.
You are right, of course, that increasing revenue enhances the potential for improved funding for Olympic sports (relative to football and men's basketball). However, I think there are many reasons to be skeptical that this will happen.
Let me give just one example of UCLA Athletics budget priorities that illustrates this. As part of the belt-tightening undertaken by UCLA Athletics as a consequence of the recent accumulation of massive debt, the cost of meals for the football team has been cut to $2.15 million from $5.4 million in 2019, saving $3.25 million in annual expenditure. According to the LA Times, this is a result of "efficiencies in pricing and quantity." (It strikes me as odd that this wasn't a consideration previously.)
At the same time, the TOTAL expenditure by UCLA Athletics for the softball program was approximately $2.2 million, which is roughly equivalent to what is now being spent on just food for the football team, and is significantly less than what was previously wasted due to UCLA Athletics' failure to pay attention to "efficiencies in pricing and quantity."
This is just one of many examples that illustrates the priorities (and incompetence) of UCLA Athletics. You are absolutely right, in principle, that these priorities could change with improved revenue, but my expectation is that the priorities will not change.
I see lots of bitching in these threads about "tradition" and oh no the student athletes are going to have to fly another few hours and get less sleep. How sad. And can we stop with the feeling bad for Bay Area alumni? Guaranteed we are going to continue playing most of the pac 12 schools, and DEFINITELY the ones that we have a "rivalry" with. It's just going to be a conference game. Just like USC plays Notre Dame every year, we'll be playing most of these cupcakes in basketball and probably have Stanford or Cal on our football schedule more often than not.
In football?! Basically 0% chance - once one rival moved conferences, how many times has/does Penn State schedule Pitt?... Missouri schedule Kansas?... Nebraska schedule Oklahoma?... A&M schedule Texas (yes, that one will soon be renewed now that they're both in the SEC)... all traditional rivalries at least as old and passionate as those among the California schools - and all scheduled once every 20 years, if that...
In basketball? Maybe occasionally going forward given that we do schedule a various array of UCs and CSUs but once you factor in the preseason tourneys, the extra games in the B1G-SEC challenge now on the schedule, and the major intersectional games (like Villanova, Kentucky, &c) that we (thankfully!) play as a blueblood there may not be as much room for a home-and-home with Stanford or Cal on a consistent basis as you imagine...
In many of the Olympic sports, it'll be interesting, given the relative strength of some B1G programs (like Nebraska and Penn State in Volleyball) and serious weakness in other sports (as Bruinette points out re. baseball and softball - not to mention Women's Basketball where the B1G is at best meh, not to mention the sports where the final four is often Stanford, $C, Cal, and UCLA) to see how this will impact those teams and programs...
I understand "how the world works" and that it's better that we have a seat on this runaway train rather than watching it from the platform wondering "WTF just happened?!" (see: Nike, University of.) and I can assume from your other posts that you couldn't care less about tradition or many of the factors that brought many of the others that post on this board to be college football or college sports fans in the first place - that it wasn't homogenized mercenary professional sports - which is fine, but I do hope you can understand those of us that are feeling sad at that aspect of what is happening even while looking forward to the opportunities this move affords us.
Finally, I do hope that those who are leading the rush to professional college athletics are mindful of the danger inherent in what's being called "College Football 2.0" - I'm happy to drive 100-odd miles round trip to the Rose Bowl or Pauley to watch Bruins games and I'm looking forward to travelling to places like Ann Arbor, Columbus, Happy Valley, and Madison like I have to Austin, College Station, Lincoln, Norman, Knoxville, and others in the past few years... but I wouldn't walk across the street to watch a USFL or G-League game.
Probably better to say most Pac 12 schools just don't have good football or men's basketball programs as opposed to "good athletic programs" given that Stanford has won the Director's Cup 25 times in the 27 times it's been awarded and Stanford, UCLA, and $C between themselves have more combined national titles than either the entire SEC combined or the entire B1G combined...
didn't know the Atlantic spoke for all fans. Anyway, fans probably don't care about the money at all. I know i don't. i wont be receiving any of it. I care about the competition. The Pac 12 sucks. 1 or 2 good teams everywhere and if you drop a came to a WSU type team, your season is ruined. Now we will be playing excellent teams more often than not.
In addition to the other major advantages of this move (1: ditching the SPTRs. 2: the pipe dream of women's hockey at UCLA is still alive), giving Dimitri something more to write about is another unanticipated great benefit from this move. I'm starting to warm up to the move.
But seriously, as I read more information and opinions and input from other people here and around the socials and take these things into consideration, I am coming around to the realization that this was sadly a necessary move. Although the current evidence for this is really more circular and self fulfilling (UCLA and *$c leave the Pac12, therefore the Pac12 will collapse, therefore UCLA and *$c must leave the Pac12 because it will collapse), I do think it represents the eventual pathway of college football in the country. This move has accelerated that path for sure, but I believe the direction of college football was going to get us to this point one day anyway. I hate the effects of TV contracts and ginormous money on college football. I hated it when the Rose Bowl quit being dedicated to the Pac10 and Big10 champs and the other traditional bowl matchups were sold out. But all my hate won't change reality. My heart wants to take the higher road, but if the Titanic is gonna sink, my mind says grabbing a lifeboat, if there is any intention of survival, is a prudent move. And at least you live to fight the fight another day.
I definitely share Bruinette's dismay that this will not necessarily help the majority of our Bruin athletes who compete in non revenue sports and I think that is tragic. Despite some of the small minds and fake fans that can't be bothered to cross a street, the health and diversity of all college athletics is critical to a place like UCLA. I sincerely hope and will advocate to our Athletic Department that this move needs to not just be to keep football relevant on a national perspective but needs to be spread thorough Morgan Center to benefit every single athlete at our University. Yes football rules the roost from a financial standpoint but UCLA is not UCLA without the entirety of the athletic programs and the students who dedicate themselves to them, and AD Jarmond better honor and foster this aspect.
So here are my initial thoughts on logistics, we are looking at 4 to 5 conference road games per season. Assuming the Big Ten schedulers are not stupid, the 5th road game will be the cross town rival game. So that means four long road trips per season. With 16 teams and no divisions, that's one road trip to each of the other 14 schools every 4 years.
This takes into account that there will be 9 conferences games per season. If the Big Ten's goal is to get more teams into the CFP, they will copy the SEC and drop down to 8 conference games. That could mean 3 to 4 long road games per season.
As for basketball, if they stick to a 20 game schedule, that means 9 long road trip games (assuming a home and home with USC). So that's 5 long road trip weekends per season (4 with a 3 game trip). With 14 long road trip schools, we would visit the other 14 teams approximately every 2 of 3 seasons.
Now that divisions are not required for Conference Championship games in football, there's no real incentive to maintain them... that said, I'd imagine that, as part of the negotiations, there's some provision for more "rational scheduling" for us and $C, at least for men's basketball (probably driven by $C's negotiators if I'm being honest) - though that also might depend on what other shoes might drop between now and 2024 - aka Notre Dame finally says "yes" and they add 3 more to get to 20 - which could be Stanford and some combination of UNC/UVa/GaTech for the Atlanta market or, less likely, U of Nike and UDub... or Notre Dame says "no" and they hold at 16 and nothing else happens before the CFP contract comes up after the 2025 season...
Until Notre Dame settles out, I don't know we or anyone really know what the conference will actually look like by 2024...
So I get an email whenever anyone comments on this article, and I'm starting to get annoyed at the general tenor of conversation here. So I'm going to issue a general warning: if you cannot have a conversation without resorting to name calling or taking pot shots at other users, then maybe you should consider refraining from posting here until you go outside and touch some grass. This is not Twitter, no matter how much you might want to treat it that way.
It’s all Evan. You should bounce him.
you are hilarious
it's an interesting opinion, but UCLA is not West Virginia, Texas Tech is not Ohio State, and the Big 12 is certainly not the Big 10 (or even the Pac 10). If we were moving to an equal or lesser conference -- like the Big 12 -- I agree. But playing the likes of Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State, Iowa, and Michigan State is not a weekly lower tier bowl game. Sure, games against Rutgers, Purdue, Minnesota, and Indiana will probably feel that way. But what did games against WSU, OSU, and ASU feel like?
This is also assuming that Oregon and Stanford do not follow us to the Big 10.
Yes there is. It is called literally ignore them and don't respond.
Given BG is talking about you thanks for the advice.
no problemo
This move going to make lots of money
Dreams do come true! The only downside is that all the flagship Big 10 schools are in the east division, but I think they are scrapping divisions anyway.
i don't think you know what discrimination means
In what way is softball a "lesser" sport? UCLA Softball has won 13 NCAA championships. How many has UCLA Football won?
Actually that's exactly what you said. You wrote: "Hearing a lot about the lesser sports like softball and swimming."
As I said previously, no one is required to watch, root for, or even care about UCLA's non-revenue sports. But it isn't useful to pretend that other UCLA fans don't follow these sports and care about the student-athletes and the programs.
Good for them....but nobody watches. Someone made a comment about not walking across the street to view the g-league. I wouldn't walk across the street to watch softball, swimming, or golf. Hope UCLA does ell in those sports, but tbh most people just don't really care. it is what it is
Arizona is not a rival because Arizona has always had a terrible football program. Same reason Cal is not (really) a rival. Trust me, it's going to be a lot more fun talking about "the Ohio State game" "the Michigan game" "the Purdue game" "the fill in the blank game" instead of "the oregon state game" and "the arizona game.
It depends on the sport. Arizona is certainly our top conference rival in Men's Basketball, and arguably in Softball. Cal remains a serious rival in Water Polo. Stanford is our top rival in a number of sports, including Men's & Women's Soccer. I don't see any game against Purdue becoming a rivalry game in any sport any time soon.
uh why would you not want the UCLA basketball team to be chartering flights? How are we supposed to attract recruits when we are flying coach while other programs are not? The men's basketball program brings in a lot of money in its own right. If the women's team can bring in that type of money then they can go ahead and charter flights too.
The point Bruin Gold was making is that there should be an effort to treat all of our student-athletes equally in terms of the support UCLA Athletics provides.
Clearly the marketplace does not treat all sports equally; student-athletes in revenue sports have opportunities that are generally not available to non-revenue student-athletes. I think it is a mistake (and probably violates at least the spirit of Title IX) for a university to provide additional benefits to student-athletes on the basis that those athletes compete in sports that generate more revenue for the university.
"Clearly the marketplace does not treat all sports equally." Because consumers do not have an equal desire to watch all sports.
Exactly. However, university policy regarding equitable treatment of student-athletes should not reflect the marketplace.
why not? And what is "equitable" treatment. That is such a weird word. Such an antiquated way of thinking. Football brings the university millions of dollars. Golf brings in nothing. Gotta make UCLA the most appealing place in the country for recruits in the revenue generating sports to want to come. Or the non-revenue sports will suffer.
UCLA is a university, not a sports empire. As such, it has responsibilities that extend far beyond recruiting student-athletes in pursuit of maximizing revenue for Athletics.
Both the UC system and UCLA have equity policies, as does UCLA Athletics:
"Equity, diversity, and inclusion among our student-athletes, coaches and staff are core values UCLA’s Department of Intercollegiate Athletics (DIA) are committed to and will not compromise."
In terms of equity, part of that is effectively dictated to all universities in the form of Title IX rules and regulations. So even though you insist that "non-revenue sports will suffer" if UCLA doesn't become "the most appealing place in the country for recruits in revenue generating sports," that is simply untrue because UCLA Football depends on the existence of women's sports for its own existence. If UCLA Athletics doesn't maintain functional sports programs of sufficient size and if it doesn't adhere to all rules and regulations under Title IX, then the football program will go away.
such an obtuse comment. Football prospers to the benefit of ALL other ucla sports.
For the 2021 fiscal year, UCLA Athletics recorded a deficit of $62.5 million. For the past 3 fiscal years, the deficit is over $100 million.
Football has not been prospering, and it certainly has not been benefitting ALL other UCLA sports. But of course you are welcome to look at itemized revenue and expense figures for UCLA Athletics and demonstrate historically the degree to which non-revenue sports benefit when football prospers.
you really think we are going to stop playing Stanford and Cal?????? It's just not going to be a conference game. Guaranteed we play them EVERY year in basketball, baseball, and all the rest.
Rivalries within a conference are fundamentally different from non-conference rivalries. For example, men's basketball games against Arizona have the potential to impact the conference title race. This happened in Ben Howland's last season at UCLA; we finished first in the Pac-12 that season, a game ahead of Arizona, thanks in part to 2 wins against the Wildcats. Taking the rivalry out of conference generally diminishes the significance of the game.
Cannot remember the last time a UCLA Cal game impacted the conference title race.
It happened in this past season in Men's Water Polo. If UCLA had defeated Cal, the Bruins would have caught the Golden Bears in the conference title race to earn a share of first place. Unfortunately, UCLA lost, and Cal won the conference title. That was the final regular season conference game for both teams, so it was both a rivalry game and a conference title decider.
talking about football and basketball.
Cal is not a top rival of UCLA in football or men's basketball.
I went to a game at Lambeau and froze my ass off. I am not sure the $1000000000000 is worth it…
ya i'll be watching our away games on tv by the pool!
I think the ACC will probably break up. Clemson, Florida State and Notre Dame will be absorbed into either the SEC or Big Ten. Not sure how it works but I'd assume bottom feeder schools like Maryland and Rutgers would be kicked out of their league for not pulling their weight. So basically a two-power conference system which would also mean that the playoff system would be changed.
Except it kind of is - it is an ACC member for all non-football sports and thus would have to either pay a massive exit fee under the ACC Grant of Rights agreement (sorry to keep bring this up!) or somehow get the B1G to accept them as a football-only member while literally every other ND program would still be members of the ACC which is... not super likely to happen
$100 mil is still $100 mil. But yes, it is MUCH easier for ND to join the Big 10 than say UNC.
And it's also entirely possible once all this gets down to the end game that ESPN fronts/helps Clemson and Miami/FSU to pay the exit fees to get to the SEC and Fox fronts/helps ND and UNC the money to pay the exit fees to get to the B1G so they can consolidate their TV product in the two megaconferences or otherwise pressures the ACC the way ESPN did the Big12 when Texas & OU left - but someone will have to make that choice and it's likely to take some time since no one wants to be the one to lose that particular game of chicken to make it happen...
It is for all sports besides football. They’d have a $150 million buyout, if they don’t find a loophole.
Nice try, bud. Educate yourself. “The ACC's new grant of rights also automatically extends Notre Dame's contract with the conference as a member in all sports but football through 2035-36, a source said. If the Irish forgo football independence in the next 20 years, they will be contracted to join the ACC.”
https://theathletic.com/3396108/2022/07/01/acc-grant-of-rights-staples/
Nope
Yes it is
The only reason the ACC hasn't been pillaged yet is their Grant of Rights media agreement under which each school signed over their media rights through 2036... Otherwise, Clemson and likely Free Shoes U would already be in the SEC, North Carolina would have been invited into the B1G yesterday, and Duke would already be the "Gonzaga of the southeast"...
Our Grant of Rights agreement ends in 2024 so that's a big part of the timing of when we move - so we go without any buyout or exit fee plus it allows the B1G to negotiate their new media rights deal with the LA market as part of the package...
Rutgers is all about the NYC/NJ market - they were never invited for their on-field accomplishments...
By the way, I understand "how the world works" but I hate that the explanation of all this makes me sound like a media consultant and not a sports fan who has loved College Football for the vast majority of my life long before I was old enough to go to college!
When I started writing about UCLA sports, it was always because I wanted to get involved in the nitty-gritty of television contracts....
lol. Lifetime dream achieved.
Lol
look for something to happen on Notre Dame soon. This is the last time they can join the Big 10 while dictating some of the terms. Once Big 10 gets new tv deal, all bets are off.
So Trump wannabe Caruso is claiming this was his idea. Curious to see how this got rolling.
I think Caruso is a slime ball and a real PoS but this was definitely Southern Cal driving the move. UCLA was just smart enough to get on the bus.
FOX could’ve had the original idea and gotten the ball rolling.
TV is almost always the tail that wags the dog. Given that $C has been making noises about their dissatisfaction with the Pac 12 for a number of months now, Caruso probably did have some role - though no one should be shocked that he would over emphasize it given that he's running for mayor and trying to make political hay - but Fox wanting the LA schools in their B1G to counter ESECPN facilitating Texas and Oklahoma to their SEC is almost certainly the major driver here
do we really deserve credit? I mean look how desperate the other 10 schools are now. If we didn't follow, we'd all be wondering if we'd be in the Mountain West in two years.
I think Caruso and SC also realized that it was a more attractive deal for the Big 10 with UCLA on board. I think that Bohn and Jarmond are very familiar with one another. The league also values their academic reputation as opposed to the SEC. They just added the #1 public school in the country to their mix. The money is needed and is very beneficial for the nob-revenue sports.
100%. These conferences are after cities, not schools. That's why I think the Pac 12 is more likely to merge with the ACC than the Big 12.
literally the only guy who can get things done. nice that we get to benefit from his know how for once.
OT The Tour starts today! I wonder, could UCLA field a bicycle team? That would be pretty cool. Does the NCAA even offer that?
Will the officiating improve?
Don't think it is possible for it to get worse.
During the next 2 seasons it could get worse. Why help us?
When did SPTRs help us on purpose?
I’m not saying they did. I’m saying now, if there’s a questionable call, they have a greater incentive to help the PAC team.
So basically you are saying nothing will change.
Yes
IMO, moving to the Big 10 is a poor outcome for our non-revenue sports. For most of these sports, joining the Big 10 is a genuine step down in quality of competition. This applies particularly to sports like softball and baseball, tennis (men's and women's), golf (men's and women's), and soccer (men's and women's).
I do not believe that our non-revenue sports will see any substantial funding benefit from a move to the Big Ten. There is nothing in recent history at UCLA (or elsewhere, frankly) to suggest that revenue boosts significantly benefit non-revenue sports. However, I might be convinced otherwise if UCLA promptly reinstates the men's swimming and men's gymnastics programs that were eliminated in the mid-90s. That said, given the reality of the financial malpractice in the UCLA Athletic Department, it's unlikely that any programs will be revived any time soon.
It appears the interests of the majority of our student-athletes are not clearly well-served by this decision. As expected, UCLA Athletics sets revenue as its priority and largely disregards the principles of its mission statement.
i don't think you needed to add the word "financial" to the last sentence of your second paragraph. The incompetence goes well beyond finances.
Hey Bruinette, long time no see!
Hey Dimitri! It's great to see that you and Joe are still creating content for BN refugees.
I've tried to quantify the difference in quality of competition between the Pac-12 and Big Ten in baseball and softball by using a crude metric complied over the last 5 years. I've excluded UCLA's and USC's contribution to these indices since (a) the Bruins cannot play themselves and (b) they will continue to play against the Trojans in the Big Ten.
Here are the results for my Quality of Competition (QC) metric (2018-2022):
Pac-12 Baseball (without UCLA & USC): QC = 4.2
Big Ten Baseball: QC = 0.77
Pac-12 Softball (without UCLA): QC = 6.1
Big Ten Softball: QC = 0.89
Those numbers represent pretty substantial differences in quality of competition.
Uhhhhhhhh
And, as Thuc Nhi Nguyen & Myah Taylor point out in the Times today, it will make it that much harder for UCLA to be in a position to host regionals when the NCAAs come around in both sports since our strength of schedule will be taking a major hit, especially in softball where UCLA is about to become, for want of a better comparison, Gonzaga men's basketball in terms of scheduling - though hopefully not in terms of tourney and championship game performance!
Awesome to see you, Bruinette!
To be honest, I share your skepticism as to whether there will be a funding benefit to our Olympic sports (at least until the department debt is brought down) but, without having their budget numbers in front of me, it certainly seems as if some of the SEC schools that never were powers across their overall programs have been investing much more in multiple sports - while there have always been great individual programs (Alabama/Georgia gymnastics, LSU/Arkansas track...), not only are their examples like Florida softball (0 super regionals before 2007 - 14 since) the depth of quality programs has increased with the flood of revenue the last decade or so... which tells me its a question of institutional will - which I hope we have and employ.
You are right, of course, that increasing revenue enhances the potential for improved funding for Olympic sports (relative to football and men's basketball). However, I think there are many reasons to be skeptical that this will happen.
Let me give just one example of UCLA Athletics budget priorities that illustrates this. As part of the belt-tightening undertaken by UCLA Athletics as a consequence of the recent accumulation of massive debt, the cost of meals for the football team has been cut to $2.15 million from $5.4 million in 2019, saving $3.25 million in annual expenditure. According to the LA Times, this is a result of "efficiencies in pricing and quantity." (It strikes me as odd that this wasn't a consideration previously.)
At the same time, the TOTAL expenditure by UCLA Athletics for the softball program was approximately $2.2 million, which is roughly equivalent to what is now being spent on just food for the football team, and is significantly less than what was previously wasted due to UCLA Athletics' failure to pay attention to "efficiencies in pricing and quantity."
This is just one of many examples that illustrates the priorities (and incompetence) of UCLA Athletics. You are absolutely right, in principle, that these priorities could change with improved revenue, but my expectation is that the priorities will not change.
I see lots of bitching in these threads about "tradition" and oh no the student athletes are going to have to fly another few hours and get less sleep. How sad. And can we stop with the feeling bad for Bay Area alumni? Guaranteed we are going to continue playing most of the pac 12 schools, and DEFINITELY the ones that we have a "rivalry" with. It's just going to be a conference game. Just like USC plays Notre Dame every year, we'll be playing most of these cupcakes in basketball and probably have Stanford or Cal on our football schedule more often than not.
In football?! Basically 0% chance - once one rival moved conferences, how many times has/does Penn State schedule Pitt?... Missouri schedule Kansas?... Nebraska schedule Oklahoma?... A&M schedule Texas (yes, that one will soon be renewed now that they're both in the SEC)... all traditional rivalries at least as old and passionate as those among the California schools - and all scheduled once every 20 years, if that...
In basketball? Maybe occasionally going forward given that we do schedule a various array of UCs and CSUs but once you factor in the preseason tourneys, the extra games in the B1G-SEC challenge now on the schedule, and the major intersectional games (like Villanova, Kentucky, &c) that we (thankfully!) play as a blueblood there may not be as much room for a home-and-home with Stanford or Cal on a consistent basis as you imagine...
In many of the Olympic sports, it'll be interesting, given the relative strength of some B1G programs (like Nebraska and Penn State in Volleyball) and serious weakness in other sports (as Bruinette points out re. baseball and softball - not to mention Women's Basketball where the B1G is at best meh, not to mention the sports where the final four is often Stanford, $C, Cal, and UCLA) to see how this will impact those teams and programs...
I understand "how the world works" and that it's better that we have a seat on this runaway train rather than watching it from the platform wondering "WTF just happened?!" (see: Nike, University of.) and I can assume from your other posts that you couldn't care less about tradition or many of the factors that brought many of the others that post on this board to be college football or college sports fans in the first place - that it wasn't homogenized mercenary professional sports - which is fine, but I do hope you can understand those of us that are feeling sad at that aspect of what is happening even while looking forward to the opportunities this move affords us.
Finally, I do hope that those who are leading the rush to professional college athletics are mindful of the danger inherent in what's being called "College Football 2.0" - I'm happy to drive 100-odd miles round trip to the Rose Bowl or Pauley to watch Bruins games and I'm looking forward to travelling to places like Ann Arbor, Columbus, Happy Valley, and Madison like I have to Austin, College Station, Lincoln, Norman, Knoxville, and others in the past few years... but I wouldn't walk across the street to watch a USFL or G-League game.
"Most pac 12 schools just don’t have good athletic programs..."
You must be joking. In terms of NCAA national championships, here are the leaders:
1. Stanford - 130
2. UCLA - 119
3. USC - 111
Probably better to say most Pac 12 schools just don't have good football or men's basketball programs as opposed to "good athletic programs" given that Stanford has won the Director's Cup 25 times in the 27 times it's been awarded and Stanford, UCLA, and $C between themselves have more combined national titles than either the entire SEC combined or the entire B1G combined...
Stanford is 1 school. UCLA is 1 school. After Stanford, UCLA, USC, Oregon....literally what does the pac 12 have? Very top heavy conference.
I’m just gonna leave these here for you to read so you understand why CFB fans—even UCLA fans—are pissed despite the economics working in our favor:
https://theathletic.com/3395321/2022/07/01/big-ten-sec-expansion-college-football-super-leagues/
https://theathletic.com/3396358/2022/07/01/college-football-conference-realignment-big-ten/
https://theathletic.com/3393557/2022/06/30/ncaa-tournament-college-realignment/
If you don’t get it after reading these or get it and don’t care, well it’s a waste of time trying to even have a conversation talking to you.
didn't know the Atlantic spoke for all fans. Anyway, fans probably don't care about the money at all. I know i don't. i wont be receiving any of it. I care about the competition. The Pac 12 sucks. 1 or 2 good teams everywhere and if you drop a came to a WSU type team, your season is ruined. Now we will be playing excellent teams more often than not.
Then you’re missing the point entirely. Waste of time having this discussion.
dont think you read what i wrote
Great week to be a UCLA alum!
In addition to the other major advantages of this move (1: ditching the SPTRs. 2: the pipe dream of women's hockey at UCLA is still alive), giving Dimitri something more to write about is another unanticipated great benefit from this move. I'm starting to warm up to the move.
But seriously, as I read more information and opinions and input from other people here and around the socials and take these things into consideration, I am coming around to the realization that this was sadly a necessary move. Although the current evidence for this is really more circular and self fulfilling (UCLA and *$c leave the Pac12, therefore the Pac12 will collapse, therefore UCLA and *$c must leave the Pac12 because it will collapse), I do think it represents the eventual pathway of college football in the country. This move has accelerated that path for sure, but I believe the direction of college football was going to get us to this point one day anyway. I hate the effects of TV contracts and ginormous money on college football. I hated it when the Rose Bowl quit being dedicated to the Pac10 and Big10 champs and the other traditional bowl matchups were sold out. But all my hate won't change reality. My heart wants to take the higher road, but if the Titanic is gonna sink, my mind says grabbing a lifeboat, if there is any intention of survival, is a prudent move. And at least you live to fight the fight another day.
I definitely share Bruinette's dismay that this will not necessarily help the majority of our Bruin athletes who compete in non revenue sports and I think that is tragic. Despite some of the small minds and fake fans that can't be bothered to cross a street, the health and diversity of all college athletics is critical to a place like UCLA. I sincerely hope and will advocate to our Athletic Department that this move needs to not just be to keep football relevant on a national perspective but needs to be spread thorough Morgan Center to benefit every single athlete at our University. Yes football rules the roost from a financial standpoint but UCLA is not UCLA without the entirety of the athletic programs and the students who dedicate themselves to them, and AD Jarmond better honor and foster this aspect.
So here are my initial thoughts on logistics, we are looking at 4 to 5 conference road games per season. Assuming the Big Ten schedulers are not stupid, the 5th road game will be the cross town rival game. So that means four long road trips per season. With 16 teams and no divisions, that's one road trip to each of the other 14 schools every 4 years.
This takes into account that there will be 9 conferences games per season. If the Big Ten's goal is to get more teams into the CFP, they will copy the SEC and drop down to 8 conference games. That could mean 3 to 4 long road games per season.
As for basketball, if they stick to a 20 game schedule, that means 9 long road trip games (assuming a home and home with USC). So that's 5 long road trip weekends per season (4 with a 3 game trip). With 14 long road trip schools, we would visit the other 14 teams approximately every 2 of 3 seasons.
Now that divisions are not required for Conference Championship games in football, there's no real incentive to maintain them... that said, I'd imagine that, as part of the negotiations, there's some provision for more "rational scheduling" for us and $C, at least for men's basketball (probably driven by $C's negotiators if I'm being honest) - though that also might depend on what other shoes might drop between now and 2024 - aka Notre Dame finally says "yes" and they add 3 more to get to 20 - which could be Stanford and some combination of UNC/UVa/GaTech for the Atlanta market or, less likely, U of Nike and UDub... or Notre Dame says "no" and they hold at 16 and nothing else happens before the CFP contract comes up after the 2025 season...
Until Notre Dame settles out, I don't know we or anyone really know what the conference will actually look like by 2024...