The game of chicken between the Raiders and Oakland over where the team will play next year shows no sign of letting up.

The Raiders are threatening to bolt at the end of this season if Oakland makes good on its threat to file a multimillion-dollar antitrust lawsuit against the team and the NFL over the team’s impending move to Las Vegas.

Now Playing:

So far the Raiders options for finding a place to play elsewhere in the Bay Area look slim, despite speculation that they might have their eyes on either UC Berkeley or Stanford’s campus stadiums.

A UC Berkeley representative tells us the Raiders haven’t contacted them but said it was unlikely the school would entertain the team playing at the renovated Cal Memorial Stadium, given the many logistical challenges — including the lack of parking. The school this year turned down an offer from the new XFL to have a team play there.

Likewise, Stanford officials said they’d had no contact with the team about hosting Raider Nation.

At the same time, National Football League sources tell us the Raiders have steered clear of the 49ers’ Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara and San Jose State’s Spartan Stadium.

Levi’s Stadium was built to accommodate two teams, but relations between the Raiders and 49ers front offices have never been overly friendly.

As for San Jose State, sports media director Lawrence Fan noted there are a number of logistical challenges, including that Spartan Stadium only seats 30,456.

Playing at the Giants’ AT&T Park for an entire season doesn’t appear to be a realistic option given the toll on the field and the cost of converting it from football to baseball and back.

Which means if the Raiders can’t reach a deal with East Bay officials for the Coliseum, odds are they wind up playing for a year or two at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas’ Sam Boyd Stadium until their new home is ready, league sources say.

According to Scott McKibben, general manager of the Oakland Alameda Coliseum Authority, the Raiders had agreed in writing to terms of a deal to play at the Coliseum next season and possibly in 2020-21 if their new Las Vegas stadium wasn’t ready.

But the deal also included an “out” if any lawsuit were filed.

“They required that the city and county and (Coliseum Authority) would have to forfeit their rights to any lawsuit over the team’s relocation to Las Vegas, and they have held very firm in that,” McKibben said.

The Raiders front office didn’t return our call seeking comment.

Oakland Councilman Noel Gallo had said a month ago that a city lawsuit against the Raiders was imminent, but no suit has been filed.

Since then, Gallo, his fellow council members and City Attorney Barbara Parker have kept mum. But sources tell us the city’s lawsuit remains on track and that any delays are linked to the complexities of getting all the outside lawyers on board, including a commitment that they will pick up all the suit’s up-front costs.

But the exact terms must still come back to the City Council for final approval, sources say, and the devil could be in the details.

Big change: University of California workers fought for and won a 3 percent raise this year.

At the same time, the University of California Board of Regents just authorized 3 percent pay raises for UC’s top brass systemwide, retroactive to July 1 in most cases.

And while 3 percent may not seem like much for those on the lower end of the ladder, up top it means big bucks.

For example, a 3 percent boost for UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ means her salary bumps up to $547,897 — a nearly $16,000-a-year raise.

UC San Francisco Chancellor Sam Hawgood’s salary rose to $844,131, or nearly a $25,000 annual hike.

UC Executive VP for Health John Stobo is now making $652,975 — a $21,765 bump up.

And UC General Counsel Charles Robinson gets a $15,607 raise to $468,211.

The salaries are even much higher for those who are not paid from the state’s annual allocation of taxpayer money, most notably, UCSF Chief Executive Officer Mark Laret, who is now making $1,104,965.

Gassed: Despite early widespread support for repealing last year’s gas tax increase, fresh polling by the Public Policy Institute of California shows a majority of voters now oppose Proposition 6.

The most likely explanation for the flip is the wording of Prop. 6, which was approved by Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

Rather than describing Prop. 6 as a gas tax repeal, the title states in bold letters: “Eliminates certain road repair and transportation funding. Requires certain fuel taxes and vehicle fees to be approved by the electorate.”

The wording is pretty much in sync with the message being delivered by the construction trades and others in a multimillion-dollar TV campaign, just getting under way, to defeat it.

Upshot: The PPIC poll found just 39 percent of likely voters favored Prop. 6 and 52 percent opposed it when read the title as it will appear on the ballot.

“No question that the wording has implications for how people are responding to a measure that seeks to repeal the gas tax,” PPIC president Mark Baldassare tells us. “And that’s a function not just of pointing out the repeal, but what some of the consequences are.”

San Francisco Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross appear Sundays, Mondays and Wednesdays. Matier can be seen on the KPIX TV morning and evening news. He can also be heard on KCBS radio Monday through Friday at 7:50 a.m. and 5:50 p.m. Got a tip? Call 415-777-8815, or email matierandross@sfchronicle.com. Twitter: @matierandross