Legendary UCLA Chancellor Charles Young Blasts Pac-10 Expansion
by Nestor on Aug 20, 2010 4:30 PM PDT
in News
Email
Print
Former UCLA Chancellor Chuck Young, who played an instrumental role in building an athletic powerhouse in Westwood, and then another one in Gainesville, as the President of University of Florida, has publicly come out and blasted the ongoing Pac-10 expansion process.
Chancellor Young essentially advanced the major arguments we have outlined in BN in recent months criticizing the hasty and not so well thought out expansion efforts under Larry Scott. Per Glenn Dickey of the San Francisco Examiner, Chancellor Young has been "sending e-mails to the chancellors and presidents of Pac-10 schools, urging them to block the expansion." His objections range from "academic grounds" to preserve tradition of our conference. He is receptive to Colorado, but he is certainly not crazy about Utah (channeling BN):
Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. "Colorado is on a par with Oregon," he said. "Utah isn't even in the picture."
He is also worried about compromising natural yearly matchups involving California schools:
"You have two schools in Washington, two in Oregon, two in northern California, two in southern California, two in Arizona, so you can have a complete round robin in football. I don't see any way the other schools can be brought in without affecting the rivalries between the southern and northern California schools, for instance."
Well those are concerns we specifically discussed on BN this summer.
There is no doubt UCLA officials will now closely pay attention to what Chancellor Young has to say. He is a legendary figure around Westwood for his accomplishments in both in the world of academics and athletics. It is a sure fire bet that officials from California Pac-10 schools are going to pay very close attention to Chancellor Young, given the track record of success he piled up at UCLA and at Florida.
It's a little ironic that I am writing this quick post sitting somewhere around Pearl Street in Boulder, CO. I can't wait till UCLA comes into town and gbruin leads the effort in organizing perhaps the first roadtrip gathering for BN. Yet as excited as I am about CU joining Pac-10, still not pleased about how the Buffs and the Utes were added in the conference without thinking through the revenue distribution model in new alignments.
It is good to see such high profile opposition and expression of concern of the ongoing expansion. Still wished Chancellor Young had spoken up publicly on this months ago when the conference chatter was heated up this summer. Still better late than never. For UCLA's case, in the upcoming months, our officials must ensure that our school doesn't get hosed in the name of equitable revenue distribution in the new Pac-10.
Chancellor Young's efforts might be a little late to "block" expansion. However, his comments should add a lot of weight to the concerns among UCLA community to ensure that no more hasty decisions in the name of conference expansion impacts our revenue intake. Let's hope UCLA officials are going to do everything possible to ensure Larry Scott doesn't screw Bruins in the name of Pac-10 expansion.
GO BRUINS.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Academic Satanding
I would have to agree with Chuck. The Pac 8 (for those of you old enough to remember) was probably a lot stronger academically w/o the Arizona schools. But expansion (and money) are the name of the game these days. Let’s just be prudent about the schools we let into this great conference. We’re #1 in national championships (led by UCLA, of course) and #1 academically…let’s not soil this tradition if we can avoid it. To say Utah is on par with Oregon may even be a stretch. But does anyone think they can really muster the political will to block the expansion?
I think at this point it's too late to block expansion
What UCLA absolutely needs to make sure that revenue distribution model doesn’t hurt the Bruins. It’s bit disconcerting that UCLA officials gave Scott the green light to add Utah.
It is going to leave a bad taste in lot of people’s mouth and ultimately will not be good for the long term healthy and viability of this conference.
"Colorado is on a par with Oregon," he said. "Utah isn't even in the picture."
Now you don’t have to pull a muscle stretching. :-)
Not too late?
“Young has been ‘sending e-mails to the chancellors and presidents of Pac-10 schools, urging them to block the expansion.’ "
Maybe, Scott was not given the carte blanche it appears he was given.
Maybe, if enough schools fight the revenue side of the expansion it will not pass and if it does not pass won’t the expansion die?
I wonder who Young is trying to influence — who he thinks can stand up and say “No” even though each of the schools has, in some form, said “Yes”.
Few of us would shed tears if the expansion didn’t happen.
And, jraucla, I for one would vote to go back to the Pac 8. Maybe, that’s the solution. Add 4 more teams to get to sixteen and then split into two sets of 8, with the old Pac 8 schools in one division and the new guys in another. We’d play all of our divisional teams and maybe have a playoff at the end of the season.
sjh
It might be something like...
Scott had the thumbs up to offer invites within his given perameters but that a formality of somekind hasn’t taken place yet to make it officially official.
Either way – as Nestor noted, its too late anyway to stop it at this point – only try to improve what deal is struck with regards to rev sharing, divisions, etc. The wave of negative pub that the Pac would get in trying to take back the offers to UU and CU would be monstrous (as well as, I assume, some sort of hefty lawsuits that would accompany).
I should be working right now...
Rumors are humming
that lot of Pac-10 schools are not happy at all with the way revenue distribution model is being contemplate in Pac-12. It is not looking like … surprise … the big projections … Larry Scoot was talking about earlier this summer. It is going to be very interesting and honestly kind of amusing since we all saw this coming from miles away.
I am actually withholding judgment
until all TV deal (both Nat’l and potential PTN) figures are finalized. I am actually on the pro expansion side now and think that the deals will be worth the troubles…..but I’ve been wrong before.
Speaking about traditions and change……lots of chatter/rumors of Big Ten divisions with Michigan and Ohio St in different divisions of a N/S or E/W split. May just be a case of change brings….well change.
I should be working right now...
N I heard a different rumor
Talking with two wealthy and influential alumni, they told me they were giddy over the expansion. Because it puts Utah on the map and helps Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential election.
Kidding aside, any quotes or links from these upset schools?
by beeru on Aug 21, 2010 11:14 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Have to agree on the Pac 8 idea(Pac 16 split)
It may be the only way out of this mess and keep the rivalries in tact. But then you have the problem of finding quality schools that are reasonably close that would fit in and are willing.
Does anyone really know what authority Scott had?
We are assuming that he kept all the school administration pooh-bahs in the picture at each step, but that might not necessarily be so. As one of my neighbors says when she wants to do something that our HOA by-laws won’t let her do, “It’s easier to apologize than ask permission.”
I would not at all be surprised if Scott got named to the post by saying all the right things. Then once he got the post, he went berserk over expansion, and just did what he thought best without checking with anyone. Now, he says it’s a fait accompli, and there’s nothing that can be done.
How about telling Colorado and Utah that we changed our collective collegiate minds, and while they’re more than welcome to play us in sports, we don’t really need them in our league. How bad would that be? I could stand the PR nightmare or however it was described. Whatever that might be would ultimately be an easier fate than the massive screw-up the Pac 12 or Pac 31 or whatever comes next will be.
Larry Scott
I would not at all be surprised if Scott got named to the post by saying all the right things. Then once he got the post, he went berserk over expansion, and just did what he thought best without checking with anyone. Now, he says it’s a fait accompli, and there’s nothing that can be done
-———————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Didn’t happen that way. Not even close.
Changes needed to be made.
Other conferneces were leaving us behind in the overall picture. Loss of revenue is huge in trying to be a major program nationally, changes needed to be made. Not that I like adding Utah, but if it leads to adding better schools in the future, some things may have needed to happen. Still too early to give this guy a grade on expansion.
I know because...
I have spoken with people that were involved in the process. Besides that, it was public knowledge that Scott briefed the athletic directors and university presidents and they gave Scott a green light to pursue expansion, including the Utah/Colorado scenario.
As for the article, hard for me to take Young seriously when he complains about Scott chartering a private jet to take the coaches back to the East for a media tour, saying “as if that will make a difference”. So basically Young wants to stick with the Tom Hansen strategy of doing nothing to sell your league and your product.
He goes on to say that the media in the East will still not see Pac-10 games because of the time difference, ignoring that by adding two mountain schools you gain an advantage in the time zone battle and it allows you to add an extra game earlier for the TV schedule. Also allows flexibility in basketball in terms of getting games on earlier.
No surprise here though. Young is an old cronie of Tom Hansen, who did a terrible job as Pac-10 commissioner.
fwiw
I also find it hard to take Chuck’s disparaging attitude towards the conference trying to make more money, given his recent sojourn in Qatar. Fairly sure he wasn’t there for the weather.
by britishbruin on Aug 21, 2010 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Let's dump this whole regional conference thing....
….And run football like they do the English soccer leagues.
There would be a total of 9 conferences (ranked in order from top to bottom 1 through 9), of 13 teams each. Each team plays a full conference round robin against 12 teams plus one rivaly/at-large game.
At the end of each season the bottom 3 teams in each league get relegated down a league, and the top three teams in each league get promoted up a league.
Obviously, the winner of League 1 is the national champion.
NCAA penalties would include an automatic relegation.
Powder to the People
As a great Bruin red head once said....
“F—- you Chuck!”
It's in the UCLA HBO Documentary
The part of the documentary about civil unrest at UCLA in the 70’s and how it effected the basketball team.
by KaponoMagic on Aug 21, 2010 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions
On the other hand,
I believe he objected to UC’s firing of Angela Davis and helped bring in ethnic studies departments.
I’m sure there are others out there that know more about this than I, but I believe it was when students were protesting the Kent State shootings and NIxon’s invasion of Cambodia, that protesters did damage to the ROTC building. I believe Young called in the LAPD and made many arrests and many were injured. I believe he issued a state of emergency on campus.
Go Bruins!
Statement from Larry Scott
(I emailed him asking):
I have a great deal of respect for Chancellor Young. He certainly enjoyed a distinguished career and has had a major impact on the Pac-10 Conference. He has shared his opinions with us and while we appreciate his input, the Presidents and Chancellors of the Pac-10 voted unanimously on our expansion. We’re incredibly excited about Colorado and Utah joining the Conference.
In other words, it’s NOT changing.
I think there are few of us that believe we will be able to change the expansion
However, if UCLA is directly harmed financially or otherwise by this arrangement, I expect full and relentless criticism of Scott. The devil is in the details, and Scott’s ass is on the line here. If he can’t find a solution that satisfies this fanbase, then BN, and hopefully our administration, will be proactive in correcting his mistake or calling for his ouster. Reduced standing in this conference and nationally is an unacceptable result.
Academic Rankings
The only non BS academic ranking is this one:
http://www.arwu.org/Country2010Main.jsp?param=United%20States
The US News and other ones are full of strange metrics like alumni giving rate and size of endowment [while not including state schools’ implied subsidies] which cause some pretty big biases.
So, looking at this one, the Pac 12 academic rankings are:
Cal – 2
Stanford – 3
UCLA – 11
UW – 14
CU- 25
USC – 32
U of A – 45
ASU – 46
Utah – 47
OSU – 55
Oregon – 90
WSU – 90
I think it is fair to say that Utah is in the lower half of Pac-12 schools and not in the same league as the top 4, but neither is WSU.
As a Utah resident, I can say the good thing about the U of U is that it is the flagship state university and it does have a large following in a region of the country where there is no NFL team within an 8 hour drive. The bad thing is that it is a bit of a commuter school and it does not have the kind of atmosphere that places like UCLA, Cal and UW have on campus. But they did just win their first Nobel prize recently, they have a relatively new and nice football stadium, and they have been kicking some serious butt in football for the last 10 years [including UCLA’s butt and USC’s butt when Carson Palmer was QB and Pete Carroll was coach].
Powder to the People
I was wondering too
what standards he was using academically. To say that Oregon is on a par with Colorado is just bizarre, and if you’re looking at research programs it’s not really close to Utah either. Both schools fit about in the middle, which is about as good as you’re going to get from schools in the West with reasonable athletic programs.
by SuperBruinMan on Aug 22, 2010 4:14 AM PDT up reply actions
so, going by pairs
Averaging those rankings, the new Mountain school pairing easily trumps AZ, WA and OR schools academically.
Bay area 2.5
LA 22.5
Mountain schools 36
AZ schools 45.5
WA 52
OR schools 72.5
Put another way, the average rank of the Pac-10 is currently 38.8; the new schools marginally lower this to 38.3
by britishbruin on Aug 22, 2010 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Colorado and Utah were not the first choices for expansion as
Pac10 tried a real power grab to get Texas and other Big 12 schools to jump. Not getting Texas was a major loss academically and athletically but Colorado is not exactly chopped liver and looking at the indecies shown the expnsion is an upgrade. Was the move too fast?-probaly but we wanted to make the possibility of a title game and increased revenue a reality. Maybe we should have added DUKE, virginia and Northwestern instead or maybe have gone for a nationwide academic conference that was metioned some years ago. When all is said and done i am not opposed to the expansion and agree with the big red head.
A note for everyone
Nothing wrong with disagreeing with Chancellor Young. However, we are not going to tolerate attacks on anyone associated with UCLA (especially from outsiders).
Geographic Fit
The two new mountain schools actually fit in nicely geographically and are closer to Los Angeles than the northwest schools in air miles. It looks like Utah and Colorado fit in better than some may think — now that it’s been established they’re also mid-pack when it comes to academics.
L.A. to Eugene: 748
L.A. to Pullman, WA: 886
L.A. to Seattle: 954
L.A. to Salt Lake: 589
L.A. to Denver: 860
another statistic
Utah also brings with it two BCS bowl wins — more than any other PAC team besides USC — which helps the PAC’s bowl ratings vs. other conferences.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
