Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues

A few months ago, I reported that the Pac-12 Conference and ACC were exploring a “loose partnership.” I believe that’s still very much on the horizon...

It solves a problem for ESPN — the ACC’s media partner — too. The network could use the crossover games to sprinkle new revenue over the restless ACC members. It’s a win-win.
Click to expand...

link

as long as CU and VT never play, I'm down with this.
 
first, I think the chances of the UC regents being able to stop this are asympotically approaching zero.

but for fun, if UCLA was negotiating the move to the B1G and didn't actually have the authority to do so, is someone at UCLA legally liable for breach of good faith in the implied covenant? i.e. if the regents prevent the move, would they in essence be making the UC system financially liable to the B1G for legal damages?
 
hokiehead said:
first, I think the chances of the UC regents being able to stop this are asympotically approaching zero.

but for fun, if UCLA was negotiating the move to the B1G and didn't actually have the authority to do so, is someone at UCLA legally liable for breach of good faith in the implied covenant? i.e. if the regents prevent the move, would they in essence be making the UC system financially liable to the B1G for legal damages?
Click to expand...
The chances are what?
 
hokiehead said:
first, I think the chances of the UC regents being able to stop this are asympotically approaching zero.

but for fun, if UCLA was negotiating the move to the B1G and didn't actually have the authority to do so, is someone at UCLA legally liable for breach of good faith in the implied covenant? i.e. if the regents prevent the move, would they in essence be making the UC system financially liable to the B1G for legal damages?
Click to expand...

this is full of wrong.

1. the uc lawyers have ALREADY formally advised the regents that they do, in fact, have the "ability" to do this.
2. no. and i won't even start to explain the 1000 legal flaws in your contract arguments. save yourself the 3 years of law school and the bar exam.
3. here is a thought: ask yourself WHY the regents tabled it to a special session next month.

the key consideration here right now is why did they postpone? the answer to that question will illuminate everything for us.

i will offer one possible scenario of many, based very specifically on the words used in the release... perhaps the regents were shown the financials of the impending tv deal, with and without ucla. suppose further that the regents were also focused on the best interests of their student athletes too at both ucla and cal (read the release) and that questions were raised about the impact of travel and the rest on the student-athletes, especially non-rev gen sports. and supposed further that ucla asked for time to properly respond to this type of cost/benefit analysis so that the regents would have complete information in making a final decision.

the longer this goes on, the more likely ucla is to get ****ed. also, suppose all the other remaining pac schools sign a GOR in advance of that next meeting so none are able to be poached by the big to replace ucla...

it seems seem like an improbable outcome that they would be blocked from exit, but it ls less improbable than it was yesterday.
 
big contract share to ucla
minus estimated losses to cal
minus travel and related costs
minus intangibles

=

whatever is going to happen.

you are PROBABLY right, but not CERTAINLY right. yet.
 
Liver said:
....i won't even start to explain the 1000 legal flaws in your contract arguments. save yourself the 3 years of law school and the bar exam.
...
Click to expand...
I asked a question; I didn't make any arguments. Wtf are you talking about?

And, is there something i did to trigger such a rude response? I'm not sure i deserved that.
 
Last edited:
Liver said:
big contract share to ucla
minus estimated losses to cal
minus travel and related costs
minus intangibles

=

whatever is going to happen.

you are PROBABLY right, but not CERTAINLY right. yet.
Click to expand...
One thing I'd add- IF, as rumored, SDSU is the replacement for USC in the P12 and Stanford is the replacement for UCLA in the B1G, then they'd also have to consider the net impact to the Cal State system if there's a substantial difference to the P12 contract with and without UCLA.
 
NW Buff said:
Money rules. The UC regents aren’t going to block this.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but the UC BOR is essentially a political body. And none of them have their own skin in the game. They can make a decision for the sake of political grandstanding, or out of emotion, or both. Even if the decision is financially ruinous, they can self-justify it for any number of reasons, none of which would make sense from a financial point of view. Imagine if CU, CSU, UNC, Mesa, and Western State were all under same politically appointed BOR, and CU was leaving a conference where CSU was a member and move would be a financial benefit to CU, but a loss for CSU. I could see such a BOR killing the deal.
 
Jayne Cobb said:
Maybe, but the UC BOR is essentially a political body. And none of them have their own skin in the game. They can make a decision for the sake of political grandstanding, or out of emotion, or both. Even if the decision is financially ruinous, they can self-justify it for any number of reasons, none of which would make sense from a financial point of view. Imagine if CU, CSU, UNC, Mesa, and Western State were all under same politically appointed BOR, and CU was leaving a conference where CSU was a member and move would be a financial benefit to CU, but a loss for CSU. I could see such a BOR killing the deal.
Click to expand...
The problem I see is that killing the deal will cause a financial loss for both UCLA and Cal. The choice is between letting UCLA bring in more money or hurt both institutions
 
hokiehead said:
I asked a question; I didn't make any arguments. Wtf are you talking about?

And, is there something i did to trigger such a rude response? I'm not sure i deserved that.
Click to expand...
sigh.

to be subject to a contract, one has to be a party to the contract. this legal principle is called privity. there are only very very rare circumstances where a court will allow an action to proceed in a contract dispute against someone who is not a party to the the contract. a jumbled version of that circumstance, i think, was in your post... basically you have to prove wrong-doing. it is called TORTIOUS interference. also, someone who is not a party to the contract does not owe any covenants of any sort to the parties. also, how would ucla know with any reasonable certainty that it would get blocked, triggering some kind of action against it? also, almost ALL deals this large and this complex have a clause in them basically saying that they are all subject to whatever required regulatory approvals are needed to close the deal. ucla knows it is governed by the regents. it would be beyond malpractice for the lawyers not to have included an approval clause for the regents. also, why would the big sue ucla or the regents even if they could? talk about a bad ****ing look. i could go on and on, but you would have to go on the clock and pay me and i would have to decide to actually practice law again which i am not interested in doing.

net/net: the big isn't going to sue ucla or the regents or god or anyone else if this falls through.

also, rude? welcome to all buffs.
 
also, while i am at it, the more interesting question is what is in the deal between the networks and the big? is there an adjustment down if ucla isn't in? if not, why not?

this is, like most things allbuffs, mental masturbation and circle jerking again but it is not currently IMPOSSIBLE that ucla gets ****ed and in perfect world (also unlikely since lawyers are smart) it triggers a pissing match between the big and the networks over payouts. that is almost certainly a remote outcome but man would i laugh and laugh.
 
Liver said:
also, while i am at it, the more interesting question is what is in the deal between the networks and the big? is there an adjustment down if ucla isn't in? if not, why not?

this is, like most things allbuffs, mental masturbation and circle jerking again but it is not currently IMPOSSIBLE that ucla gets ****ed and in perfect world (also unlikely since lawyers are smart) it triggers a pissing match between the big and the networks over payouts. that is almost certainly a remote outcome but man would i laugh and laugh.
Click to expand...
also, i doubt it, but imagine if ucla already signed the GoR with the big. now we are talking nuclear ****ing outcomes for everyone. malpractice, multiple law suits and years of uncertainty. i would definitely be down for the absolute carnage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top