The LA Times ran an article purporting to be the inside story of what went on behind the scene with regard to UCLA's move to the Big Ten. Below is an excerpt. And below the excerpt is a commentary based on facts either downplayed or not even mentioned in the story:
...Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff was working on another way to save the 108-year-old conference. Multiple sources not authorized to speak publicly about negotiations shared the following outline of the plan and Pac-12 leaders’ response with The Times.
Privately, Kliavkoff was deeply engaged with a small group of regents about the framework of a deal that would lead to the regents voting to block UCLA’s move — even though the regents did not want to set a precedent of overturning a monumental campus-specific decision.
The regents did the math. UCLA was supposed to make $62 million per year from the Big Ten’s new mega media rights deal. The Bruins’ travel costs to compete in the Midwest-based conference were expected to be in the range of $10 million to $12 million annually. So, the regents gave Kliavkoff a magic number. If he could guarantee the Bruins $52 million annually during the five years of the league’s next media deal, the regents promised Kliavkoff a vote heavily in favor of UCLA staying in the Pac-12.
It was not going to be easy for the remaining 10 schools to stomach giving UCLA a much bigger annual revenue share. The Pac-12’s math said that a media rights deal for 11 schools — even with the Los Angeles market back under the conference footprint — was not likely to net $52 million for each school.
Not only did Kliavkoff need the Pac-12 presidents to sign off on the guaranteed money, but they would also have to take the leap of faith to sign a grant of rights binding the schools together without knowing the exact details of what their media deal would be. Lastly, the Pac-12 would have to pay the $15-million fee UCLA would owe to the Big Ten for breaking its agreement.
When Kliavkoff presented the idea to the Pac-12 board, Oregon interim president Patrick Phillips vehemently shut it down. He said he would not have the Ducks in a conference where they have to take less money than UCLA, and any conversation about the possibility quickly died.
Kliavkoff declined to comment on the negotiations that played out quietly behind the scenes.
On Dec. 14, the UC Regents met and voted 11 to 5 to approve the Bruins’ exit to the Big Ten. While the vote was assumed by many to be mere formality, it certainly could have gone the other direction — a theme that would emerge time and again on the Pac-12’s road to ruin...
Full story at https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2023-08-16/pac-12-collapse-decisions-realignment-ucla-oregon.
==
Commentary: There are a number of questionable things about this story. I have no doubt that the anonymous sources "not authorized to speak publicly" may have said particular things or perceived particular things. However, the statement that "while the [Regents'] vote was assumed by many to be mere formality, it certainly could have gone the other direction" seems to be a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees. So, let's take a macro view and focus on the forest. Consider these 7 points:
1) The brouhaha at the Regents began when the governor showed up at a closed session and complained about UCLA's decision to leave the Pac-12 and its impact on Berkeley's revenue. We can speculate as to why the governor would involve himself in this issue. Maybe he thought college football was a Joe-Six-Pack issue that would help his non-campaign for president. But his motive really doesn't matter. When the governor talks, the Regents have to listen. That is especially true for a governor who, unlike his predecessor, doesn't normally attend Regents meetings despite being an ex officio Regent.
2) Related to point #1 is the fact that the Regents have not shown much interest in college athletics. They don't normally talk about athletics. The kinds of things that interest them are admissions (SAT, etc.), academics, diversity, capital projects, etc.*
3) The Regents generally don't like to disapprove of actions undertaken by the campus chancellors. Such disapproval would be a vote of no confidence. Regents may raise objections when campus-level items are brought to them, typically expensive capital projects, but ultimately they go along.
4) No one has disputed that Chancellor Block had explicit authority to do what he did, i.e., approve the move to the Big Ten. Yes, in theory, the Regents could retroactively pull back that authority and override the decision. But doing so would be an unprecedented action, most likely leading to Block's resignation. (Indeed, even the more modest decision the Regents made - after raking Block over the coals for a decision he was empowered by them to make - may have contributed to his later decision to step down next year.)
5) The UC general counsel in cautious terms advised that the Regents did have the authority to override Block. He did NOT say doing so would be a good idea. Apart from the implicit no-confidence issue, Block had acted under delegations of authority as an agent of the Regents and had made certain commitments. Reversing an agreement made by their authorized agent would have invited lawsuits, losing lawsuits. Advising that you have the technical authority to do something that would create lawsuits you were likely to lose is not the same thing as advising you to do it.
6) When you look at all the forces pressing on the Regents - the governor's intervention, a desire not to take a de facto vote of no confidence in Block, the precarious legal situation that would be caused by overriding an agreement made in your name by your authorized agent - the only way out was to have UCLA share some revenue with Berkeley. Despite the drama and the multiple meetings it took to get to that decision, there was no practical choice. Revenue sharing is an internal UC matter that has no effect on the agreement with the Big Ten, so it creates no legal dangers for UC. It avoids overriding Block.
7) According to the article, "publicly, the University of California Board of Regents’ threats to force UCLA to stay in the Pac-12 and avoid hurting UC Berkeley were viewed as posturing, bluffs to get attention and possibly some money from the departing Bruins. Privately, Kliavkoff was deeply engaged with a small group of regents about the framework of a deal that would lead to the regents voting to block UCLA’s move — even though the regents did not want to set a precedent of overturning a monumental campus-specific decision." Of course, individual Regents may have talked with Kliavkoff, why wouldn't they? Kliavkoff might even have had the illusion that in the end the Regents would put his Humpty Dumpty back together again. But the article seems to take that possibility seriously. Moreover, the Regents didn't need "posturing" and "bluffs" to get a revenue sharing deal. They had the authority to impose it - and they did.
===
*The last time there was any serious talk at the Regents about student-athletes was back in 2018 and the focus was on whether there were sufficient guidelines in place regarding their welfare. See:
https://archive.org/details/0AcademicAndStudentAffairsCommittee.
No comments:
Post a Comment