Yes. Nazis are skilled organizers and leaders.Econ141 said:calumnus said:Econ141 said:CaliforniaEternal said:
The chancellor just reiterated on a campus broadcast that she thinks that more conferences is better for college athletics and she values the amateur athlete instead of the professional athlete model. That really sounds to me like she cares more about ucla staying than having Cal join the B1G. She did not discuss the woeful state of our revenue programs.
Does she not care that these athletes were being taken advantage of through the amateur model? Nope. Does anyone leading the landscape change to cfb care what she thinks? She is running our program into the ground and all we can do is watch.
How many times did we have to hear that she and Knowlton are the best chancellor and AD combo we have ever had for athletics? That Christ is working tirelessly to get us into the B1G? And this was from insiders and major boosters.
The ONLY saving grace is that the new play for play environment is not her choice or under her control. It is now the law of the country and the law gives control to the boosters.
All we need is for our boosters to see Christ and Knowlton clearly for what they are, stop spreading BS that they are going to save us, stop being sycophants, and stop giving them money to throw away and instead put it into booster controlled funds and taking control over the AD, telling Knowlton what to do like boosters at other schools do.
Our alumni base is large, wealthier, smarter and more innovative than the competition. The new environment is actually one in which Cal can excel.
Developing a well funded booster organization that pays players and elects a shadow AD is the path forward.
My gosh this is so the way. It's a win-win because then Christ and Knowlton can go back to not giving a damn about football but legitimately so. Let the donors and fans who care about Cal football take control. We need a Jan 6 (but successful) -like coup.
The Latest Rumors
261,861 Views |
1901 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Bobodeluxe
Bobodeluxe said:Yes. Nazis are skilled organizers and leaders.Econ141 said:calumnus said:Econ141 said:CaliforniaEternal said:
The chancellor just reiterated on a campus broadcast that she thinks that more conferences is better for college athletics and she values the amateur athlete instead of the professional athlete model. That really sounds to me like she cares more about ucla staying than having Cal join the B1G. She did not discuss the woeful state of our revenue programs.
Does she not care that these athletes were being taken advantage of through the amateur model? Nope. Does anyone leading the landscape change to cfb care what she thinks? She is running our program into the ground and all we can do is watch.
How many times did we have to hear that she and Knowlton are the best chancellor and AD combo we have ever had for athletics? That Christ is working tirelessly to get us into the B1G? And this was from insiders and major boosters.
The ONLY saving grace is that the new play for play environment is not her choice or under her control. It is now the law of the country and the law gives control to the boosters.
All we need is for our boosters to see Christ and Knowlton clearly for what they are, stop spreading BS that they are going to save us, stop being sycophants, and stop giving them money to throw away and instead put it into booster controlled funds and taking control over the AD, telling Knowlton what to do like boosters at other schools do.
Our alumni base is large, wealthier, smarter and more innovative than the competition. The new environment is actually one in which Cal can excel.
Developing a well funded booster organization that pays players and elects a shadow AD is the path forward.
My gosh this is so the way. It's a win-win because then Christ and Knowlton can go back to not giving a damn about football but legitimately so. Let the donors and fans who care about Cal football take control. We need a Jan 6 (but successful) -like coup.
Did not mean to take it there so ... ok not a funny joke at all. Will delete.
Just reaching for solutions to an impossible dilemma.Econ141 said:Bobodeluxe said:Yes. Nazis are skilled organizers and leaders.Econ141 said:calumnus said:Econ141 said:CaliforniaEternal said:
The chancellor just reiterated on a campus broadcast that she thinks that more conferences is better for college athletics and she values the amateur athlete instead of the professional athlete model. That really sounds to me like she cares more about ucla staying than having Cal join the B1G. She did not discuss the woeful state of our revenue prDoes she not care that these athletes were being taken advantage of through the amateur model? Nope. Does anyone leading the landscape change to cfb care what she thinks? She is running our program into the ground and all we can do is watch.
How many times did we have to hear that she and Knowlton are the best chancellor and AD combo we have ever had for athletics? That Christ is working tirelessly to get us into the B1G? And this was from insiders and major boosters.
The ONLY saving grace is that the new play for play environment is not her choice or under her control. It is now the law of the country and the law gives control to the boosters.
All we need is for our boosters to see Christ and Knowlton clearly for what they are, stop spreading BS that they are going to save us, stop being sycophants, and stop giving them money to throw away and instead put it into booster controlled funds and taking control over the AD, telling Knowlton what to do like boosters at other schools do.
Our alumni base is large, wealthier, smarter and more innovative than the competition. The new environment is actually one in which Cal can excel.
Developing a well funded booster organization that pays players and elects a shadow AD is the path forward.
My gosh this is so the way. It's a win-win because then Christ and Knowlton can go back to not giving a damn about football but legitimately so. Let the donors and fans who care about Cal football take control. We need a Jan 6 (but successful) -like coup.
Did it mean to take it there so ok not a funny joke at all. Will delete.
Econ141 said:calumnus said:Econ141 said:CaliforniaEternal said:
The chancellor just reiterated on a campus broadcast that she thinks that more conferences is better for college athletics and she values the amateur athlete instead of the professional athlete model. That really sounds to me like she cares more about ucla staying than having Cal join the B1G. She did not discuss the woeful state of our revenue programs.
Does she not care that these athletes were being taken advantage of through the amateur model? Nope. Does anyone leading the landscape change to cfb care what she thinks? She is running our program into the ground and all we can do is watch.
How many times did we have to hear that she and Knowlton are the best chancellor and AD combo we have ever had for athletics? That Christ is working tirelessly to get us into the B1G? And this was from insiders and major boosters.
The ONLY saving grace is that the new play for play environment is not her choice or under her control. It is now the law of the country and the law gives control to the boosters.
All we need is for our boosters to see Christ and Knowlton clearly for what they are, stop spreading BS that they are going to save us, stop being sycophants, and stop giving them money to throw away and instead put it into booster controlled funds and taking control over the AD, telling Knowlton what to do like boosters at other schools do.
Our alumni base is large, wealthier, smarter and more innovative than the competition. The new environment is actually one in which Cal can excel.
Developing a well funded booster organization that pays players and elects a shadow AD is the path forward.
My gosh this is so the way. It's a win-win because then Christ and Knowlton can go back to not giving a damn about football but legitimately so. Let the donors and fans who care about Cal football take control.
Exactly.
HearstMining said:The Aggies do sell out many of their games, so there is student support, but it is a small stadium. In fact, the student body recently voted to change the mascot from a mustang to . . . a cow. Of course, for older Cal alums that may resonate: "Farms in Berkeley? Moooooo!"CaliforniaEternal said:
The chancellor just reiterated on a campus broadcast that she thinks that more conferences is better for college athletics and she values the amateur athlete instead of the professional athlete model. That really sounds to me like she cares more about ucla staying than having Cal join the B1G. She did not discuss the woeful state of our revenue programs.
Now UC Davis Health Stadium, it was designed to be expandable (I believe not the case with the Sac State erector set stadium). It's probably easier to add 15,000 seats than to attract those size crowds, but adding Pac 12 opponents would likely draw more people from Sacramento, as well as local alums from those schools.
C'mon. You think the chancellor or president of every university that would love Big Ten money should be publicly cheerleading for the Big Ten, even if the Big Ten is not interested?CaliforniaEternal said:
That really sounds to me like she cares more about ucla staying than having Cal join the B1G.
The chancellor isn't pumping up Cal joining the Big Ten because she knows the Big Ten isn't inviting anyone else at the present time. Also: The stuff about the regents holding up UCLA's move is purely a play in which the regents are deciding whether to cater to the CMS bondholders by diverting some of UCLA's newly-found riches to them. The regents' backgrounds are in politics and/or big business. They care about the financial institutions that buy the bonds; they don't give a fig about football at Cal or UCLA or any other university.
Half a fig, on a good day.BearSD said:C'mon. You think the chancellor or president of every university that would love Big Ten money should be publicly cheerleading for the Big Ten, even if the Big Ten is not interested?CaliforniaEternal said:
That really sounds to me like she cares more about ucla staying than having Cal join the B1G.
The chancellor isn't pumping up Cal joining the Big Ten because she knows the Big Ten isn't inviting anyone else at the present time. Also: The stuff about the regents holding up UCLA's move is purely a play in which the regents are deciding whether to cater to the CMS bondholders by diverting some of UCLA's newly-found riches to them. The regents' backgrounds are in politics and/or big business. They care about the financial institutions that buy the bonds; they don't give a fig about football at Cal or UCLA or any other university.
As it should be.
The National College Players Association, a players rights group, asks the UC Regents to oppose UCLA's move to the Big Ten.
— Chris Vannini (@ChrisVannini) December 8, 2022
Director Ramogi Huma, a former UCLA football player, says "This move is a short-sighted
money grab and that will harm college athletes in several ways." pic.twitter.com/2kUFzQT5tv
BearSD said:C'mon. You think the chancellor or president of every university that would love Big Ten money should be publicly cheerleading for the Big Ten, even if the Big Ten is not interested?CaliforniaEternal said:
That really sounds to me like she cares more about ucla staying than having Cal join the B1G.
The chancellor isn't pumping up Cal joining the Big Ten because she knows the Big Ten isn't inviting anyone else at the present time. Also: The stuff about the regents holding up UCLA's move is purely a play in which the regents are deciding whether to cater to the CMS bondholders by diverting some of UCLA's newly-found riches to them. The regents' backgrounds are in politics and/or big business. They care about the financial institutions that buy the bonds; they don't give a fig about football at Cal or UCLA or any other university.
We should all expect the chancellor to clearly articulate a vision for football and basketball to have success. That the campus will do what it can to facilitate success. It doesn't have to be a massive financial commitment, but anything to help these programs work more efficiently.
CaliforniaEternal said:BearSD said:C'mon. You think the chancellor or president of every university that would love Big Ten money should be publicly cheerleading for the Big Ten, even if the Big Ten is not interested?CaliforniaEternal said:
That really sounds to me like she cares more about ucla staying than having Cal join the B1G.
The chancellor isn't pumping up Cal joining the Big Ten because she knows the Big Ten isn't inviting anyone else at the present time. Also: The stuff about the regents holding up UCLA's move is purely a play in which the regents are deciding whether to cater to the CMS bondholders by diverting some of UCLA's newly-found riches to them. The regents' backgrounds are in politics and/or big business. They care about the financial institutions that buy the bonds; they don't give a fig about football at Cal or UCLA or any other university.
We should all expect the chancellor to clearly articulate a vision for football and basketball to have success. That the campus will do what it can to facilitate success. It doesn't have to be a massive financial commitment, but anything to help these programs work more efficiently.
But she has never done that right? I think that says it all. When she did open her mouth she said it's not about wins and losses...but didn't elaborate on what else there is. She has no vision and she's not even thinking about it. I can't even start talking about Knowlton... I think we are all exhausted with our frustration with him.
Berkeley is just a bad place ... Way too beauracratic and it ain't changing ever. This is the admin's best case scenario - let market forces just wash our athletics away.
Econ141 said:CaliforniaEternal said:BearSD said:C'mon. You think the chancellor or president of every university that would love Big Ten money should be publicly cheerleading for the Big Ten, even if the Big Ten is not interested?CaliforniaEternal said:
That really sounds to me like she cares more about ucla staying than having Cal join the B1G.
The chancellor isn't pumping up Cal joining the Big Ten because she knows the Big Ten isn't inviting anyone else at the present time. Also: The stuff about the regents holding up UCLA's move is purely a play in which the regents are deciding whether to cater to the CMS bondholders by diverting some of UCLA's newly-found riches to them. The regents' backgrounds are in politics and/or big business. They care about the financial institutions that buy the bonds; they don't give a fig about football at Cal or UCLA or any other university.
We should all expect the chancellor to clearly articulate a vision for football and basketball to have success. That the campus will do what it can to facilitate success. It doesn't have to be a massive financial commitment, but anything to help these programs work more efficiently.
But she has never done that right? I think that says it all. When she did open her mouth she said it's not about wins and losses...but didn't elaborate on what else there is. She has no vision and she's not even thinking about it. I can't even start talking about Knowlton... I think we are all exhausted with our frustration with him.
Berkeley is just a bad place ... Way too beauracratic and it ain't changing ever. This is the admin's best case scenario - let market forces just wash our athletics away.
Correct, neither her nor her lackey JK ever bother to say that success in the revenue sports is a goal. They won't even pretend it's the goal even though it costs nothing to say that out loud. Everyone else takes their cues knowing there are no expectations and the results are now at historic lows.
Hold on here. Commish "outside the box" George said UCLA will lose money. Clearly George is bringing a media deal to the table that will blow the Regents and Chancellor Block away..
#GeorgisnotaFRAUD?
#GeorgisnotaFRAUD?
I agree, but that's just not in Carol Christ's DNA.CaliforniaEternal said:BearSD said:C'mon. You think the chancellor or president of every university that would love Big Ten money should be publicly cheerleading for the Big Ten, even if the Big Ten is not interested?CaliforniaEternal said:
That really sounds to me like she cares more about ucla staying than having Cal join the B1G.
The chancellor isn't pumping up Cal joining the Big Ten because she knows the Big Ten isn't inviting anyone else at the present time. Also: The stuff about the regents holding up UCLA's move is purely a play in which the regents are deciding whether to cater to the CMS bondholders by diverting some of UCLA's newly-found riches to them. The regents' backgrounds are in politics and/or big business. They care about the financial institutions that buy the bonds; they don't give a fig about football at Cal or UCLA or any other university.
We should all expect the chancellor to clearly articulate a vision for football and basketball to have success. That the campus will do what it can to facilitate success. It doesn't have to be a massive financial commitment, but anything to help these programs work more efficiently.
1) Maybe UCLA will lose money, maybe they won't, but even if they knew they were going to lose money, they would still go to the Big Ten just because USC is also going.wifeisafurd said:
Hold on here. Commish "outside the box" George said UCLA will lose money. Clearly George is bringing a media deal to the table that will blow the Regents and Chancellor Block away..
#GeorgisnotaFRAUD?
2) The media deal isn't going to blow anyone away. IMO the Pac CEOs are going to have to choose only one between more "traditional" media exposure and more money, and if they want more money they're going to have to park most of the Pac's content on streaming, on Amazon or ESPN+.
I am surprised that this thread has gone silent (there have been no posts in four days) with the Regents meeting tomorrow. Is it clear to everyone what is going to happen? If so, what is it? Or is there some other reason posts have stopped?
gardenstatebear said:
I am surprised that this thread has gone silent (there have been no posts in four days) with the Regents meeting tomorrow. Is it clear to everyone what is going to happen? If so, what is it? Or is there some other reason posts have stopped?
Big Ten or bust (or door No. 3): UC Board of Regents to decide UCLA's fate, finally
UC regents will meet Dec. 14 at UCLA to block or approve the move
After months of discussions and debate, surveys and presentations, the University of California Board of Regents will meet Wednesday to determine the fate of UCLA's planned move to the Big Ten in the summer of 2024.
One way or another, the saga will reach its conclusion following open and closed sessions that are scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. at the Luskin Conference Center at UCLA.
The chance of the governing board overturning the Bruins' move is "extremely unlikely," according to a source familiar with the process.
Rescinding any decision made by a campus chancellor UCLA's Gene Block formalized the Big Ten entry on June 30 could create a dangerous precedent within the UC system.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/12/13/big-ten-or-bust-uc-board-of-regents-to-finally-decide-uclas-fate/
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
I've always assumed that the Regents will eventually rubber stamp the move, and am more concerned about our leadership. "No one is going to make excuses..." BUT covid, covid, covid. Can't believe that the fan base bought this in the first place -- thought Cal folks had better critical thinking skills -- much less still accepting it.gardenstatebear said:
I am surprised that this thread has gone silent (there have been no posts in four days) with the Regents meeting tomorrow. Is it clear to everyone what is going to happen? If so, what is it? Or is there some other reason posts have stopped?
Clearly, winning in the Rev sports is just not that important to JK and the Chancellor.
https://www.si.com/college/cal/basketball/knowlton-on-fox
I agree that cancelling the Southern Branch's move to the B1G is unlikely at best. Nevertheless, i would consider it a win if they divert some funding from that school to ours (and maybe the other UCs) on the ground that Westwood will be getting significantly more revenue at our expense as a result of the move.BigDaddy said:gardenstatebear said:
I am surprised that this thread has gone silent (there have been no posts in four days) with the Regents meeting tomorrow. Is it clear to everyone what is going to happen? If so, what is it? Or is there some other reason posts have stopped?
Big Ten or bust (or door No. 3): UC Board of Regents to decide UCLA's fate, finally
UC regents will meet Dec. 14 at UCLA to block or approve the move
After months of discussions and debate, surveys and presentations, the University of California Board of Regents will meet Wednesday to determine the fate of UCLA's planned move to the Big Ten in the summer of 2024.
One way or another, the saga will reach its conclusion following open and closed sessions that are scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. at the Luskin Conference Center at UCLA.
The chance of the governing board overturning the Bruins' move is "extremely unlikely," according to a source familiar with the process.
Rescinding any decision made by a campus chancellor UCLA's Gene Block formalized the Big Ten entry on June 30 could create a dangerous precedent within the UC system.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/12/13/big-ten-or-bust-uc-board-of-regents-to-finally-decide-uclas-fate/
Fire Knowlton!
Fire Fox!
Put Wilcox in a hot seat!
Fire Fox!
Put Wilcox in a hot seat!
I don't understand why anyone thinks UCLA owes us anything in this process and frankly if the roles were reversed, this board would be going apoplectic right now with outrage at the remotest hint that we could be blocked or have to pay UCLA one dime for this. I'll take a payout if we can get it, but I don't know the justification for that. Especially since UCLA has an obvious argument. "Look at them. It isn't our fault the Big 10 doesn't want them".southseasbear said:I agree that cancelling the Southern Branch's move to the B1G is unlikely at best. Nevertheless, i would consider it a win if they divert some funding from that school to ours (and maybe the other UCs) on the ground that Westwood will be getting significantly more revenue at our expense as a result of the move.BigDaddy said:gardenstatebear said:
I am surprised that this thread has gone silent (there have been no posts in four days) with the Regents meeting tomorrow. Is it clear to everyone what is going to happen? If so, what is it? Or is there some other reason posts have stopped?
Big Ten or bust (or door No. 3): UC Board of Regents to decide UCLA's fate, finally
UC regents will meet Dec. 14 at UCLA to block or approve the move
After months of discussions and debate, surveys and presentations, the University of California Board of Regents will meet Wednesday to determine the fate of UCLA's planned move to the Big Ten in the summer of 2024.
One way or another, the saga will reach its conclusion following open and closed sessions that are scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. at the Luskin Conference Center at UCLA.
The chance of the governing board overturning the Bruins' move is "extremely unlikely," according to a source familiar with the process.
Rescinding any decision made by a campus chancellor UCLA's Gene Block formalized the Big Ten entry on June 30 could create a dangerous precedent within the UC system.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/12/13/big-ten-or-bust-uc-board-of-regents-to-finally-decide-uclas-fate/
Yeah except for the fact that UCLA achieved their "success" by running $100 million deficit in athletic spending over the last few years. Money that came from the Regents and ultimately the people of the state of California. So it's not exactly as if they earned anything. Or is it they did it's just happening to be located in the nation's largest media market. Give me $100 million annually and I will put Cal in the top 10. Guaranteed.BearlyCareAnymore said:I don't understand why anyone thinks UCLA owes us anything in this process and frankly if the roles were reversed, this board would be going apoplectic right now with outrage at the remotest hint that we could be blocked or have to pay UCLA one dime for this. I'll take a payout if we can get it, but I don't know the justification for that. Especially since UCLA has an obvious argument. "Look at them. It isn't our fault the Big 10 doesn't want them".southseasbear said:I agree that cancelling the Southern Branch's move to the B1G is unlikely at best. Nevertheless, i would consider it a win if they divert some funding from that school to ours (and maybe the other UCs) on the ground that Westwood will be getting significantly more revenue at our expense as a result of the move.BigDaddy said:gardenstatebear said:
I am surprised that this thread has gone silent (there have been no posts in four days) with the Regents meeting tomorrow. Is it clear to everyone what is going to happen? If so, what is it? Or is there some other reason posts have stopped?
Big Ten or bust (or door No. 3): UC Board of Regents to decide UCLA's fate, finally
UC regents will meet Dec. 14 at UCLA to block or approve the move
After months of discussions and debate, surveys and presentations, the University of California Board of Regents will meet Wednesday to determine the fate of UCLA's planned move to the Big Ten in the summer of 2024.
One way or another, the saga will reach its conclusion following open and closed sessions that are scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. at the Luskin Conference Center at UCLA.
The chance of the governing board overturning the Bruins' move is "extremely unlikely," according to a source familiar with the process.
Rescinding any decision made by a campus chancellor UCLA's Gene Block formalized the Big Ten entry on June 30 could create a dangerous precedent within the UC system.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/12/13/big-ten-or-bust-uc-board-of-regents-to-finally-decide-uclas-fate/
This is pure ant and the grasshopper parable stuff
A fact that I think is outrageous. (to be clear, it isn't $100million annually, it is $102M over three years) I just don't see what that has to do with Cal. If the Regents wanted to use the opportunity to impose conditions that their athletic department doesn't run deficits and that they have to pay back anything they already ran up, I'd be all for it. What does that have to do with Cal who is also running large deficits? But I'm not sure we are the ones who should be bringing up paying for athletic deficits. Every other UC may have something to say.Sebastabear said:Yeah except for the fact that UCLA achieved their "success" by running $100 million deficit in athletic spending over the last few years. Money that came from the Regents and ultimately the people of the state of California. So it's not exactly as if they earned anything. Or is it they did it's just happening to be located in the nation's largest media market. Give me $100 million annually and I will put Cal in the top 10. Guaranteed.BearlyCareAnymore said:I don't understand why anyone thinks UCLA owes us anything in this process and frankly if the roles were reversed, this board would be going apoplectic right now with outrage at the remotest hint that we could be blocked or have to pay UCLA one dime for this. I'll take a payout if we can get it, but I don't know the justification for that. Especially since UCLA has an obvious argument. "Look at them. It isn't our fault the Big 10 doesn't want them".southseasbear said:I agree that cancelling the Southern Branch's move to the B1G is unlikely at best. Nevertheless, i would consider it a win if they divert some funding from that school to ours (and maybe the other UCs) on the ground that Westwood will be getting significantly more revenue at our expense as a result of the move.BigDaddy said:gardenstatebear said:
I am surprised that this thread has gone silent (there have been no posts in four days) with the Regents meeting tomorrow. Is it clear to everyone what is going to happen? If so, what is it? Or is there some other reason posts have stopped?
Big Ten or bust (or door No. 3): UC Board of Regents to decide UCLA's fate, finally
UC regents will meet Dec. 14 at UCLA to block or approve the move
After months of discussions and debate, surveys and presentations, the University of California Board of Regents will meet Wednesday to determine the fate of UCLA's planned move to the Big Ten in the summer of 2024.
One way or another, the saga will reach its conclusion following open and closed sessions that are scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. at the Luskin Conference Center at UCLA.
The chance of the governing board overturning the Bruins' move is "extremely unlikely," according to a source familiar with the process.
Rescinding any decision made by a campus chancellor UCLA's Gene Block formalized the Big Ten entry on June 30 could create a dangerous precedent within the UC system.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/12/13/big-ten-or-bust-uc-board-of-regents-to-finally-decide-uclas-fate/
This is pure ant and the grasshopper parable stuff
I'd suggest you read this breakdown.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/27/pac-12-finances-as-covid-whacks-the-budgets-cal-and-ucla-experience-wildly-different-outcomes/
Cal makes their athletic books balance by writing huge checks from the university to the athletic department and calling it revenue. ($20M last year and $25M the year before). UCLA doesn't do that. According to the balance sheets, Cal had athletic revenue of $94M last year and UCLA had $47M. If you were to say that is obviously ludicrous, you'd be right. Bottom line is that Cal has $39M in "revenue" on the athletic department's books last year that was clearly not generated by athletics ($20M which is just a check from the university so is in no way revenue to Cal, just an accounting method of shifting athletic department deficits to the general campus) while UCLA had $3M. Further, UCLA's athletic department pays another campus department for using Pauley Pavillion, which is just taking from one bucket and moving to another. It is shown as debt to the athletic department, but it is not an actual cost to the university as a whole. Cal is also paying for a good chunk of facilities cost (as in a large chunk of the debt service on the stadium - around $11M) out of the general fund, which UCLA doesn't do. (I happen to think it was fair to take that off of the athletic department books, but again, UCLA's athletic department's financial statements have significantly higher facilities expenses because they don't account for the university paying it off out of the general fund). When you account for all of this, Cal is still probably doing less badly than UCLA over the past two years, but it is pretty close. Both departments are losing tons of money. Cal just writes the checks to the athletic department before the financial statements are issued and UCLA writes them after.
Fact is that both Cal and UCLA have been relying on a gravy train that is coming to an end and both should have seen it coming. UCLA thinks they can keep it going by going to the Big 10, which I think is very questionable. Frankly, I think they will get a bigger pay out, will get pummeled in conference, will lose even more of its donors and ticket sales, and have significantly increased expenses and they will be looking at best at a wash and I'd bet they will lose even more money.
And as you say, ultimately it is the people of California that are paying for this (and the students through tuition). It was one thing when it was a few million here or there, but tens of millions is something that gets noticed. Neither should think they can keep doing this much longer.
Edit:
Doing a little more on this. During the same three year time period that UCLA lost $102M, Cal wrote roughly $50M in checks to the athletic department directly and paid $33M toward athletic facilities that UCLA does not pay for their athletic department. And even including those contributions to the athletic department, Cal athletics lost $12.5 over that period. So my math says you have $95.5M of that $100M you were looking for to guarantee that top 10 finish. That doesn't include a $17M "other operating revenue" last year that is not explained and is not normal when compared to prior years, and some other revenue items that are hard to map to anything and are not included in UCLA's balance sheets.
There is simply no way Cal athletics made $47M more in revenue than UCLA (double) last year. If you told me Cal's expenses were a lot lower (they weren't), I'd believe you. But I'm not believing that revenue number. (and given we know at least $20M was not real, I have pretty good reason not to believe it.
I think success would have to be defined in terms of the athletic department programs as a whole and pretty much applied to one program, no?
also, I don't think UCLA is looking at things in terms of success as much as survival. Particularly for the non revenue sports.
And UCLA would be saying the same thing about our stadium debt.
I'm hearing that the UCLA exit fee is, at this point, less than $20 million.
also, I don't think UCLA is looking at things in terms of success as much as survival. Particularly for the non revenue sports.
And UCLA would be saying the same thing about our stadium debt.
I'm hearing that the UCLA exit fee is, at this point, less than $20 million.
Sebastabear said:Yeah except for the fact that UCLA achieved their "success" by running $100 million deficit in athletic spending over the last few years. Money that came from the Regents and ultimately the people of the state of California. So it's not exactly as if they earned anything. Or is it they did it's just happening to be located in the nation's largest media market. Give me $100 million annually and I will put Cal in the top 10. Guaranteed.BearlyCareAnymore said:I don't understand why anyone thinks UCLA owes us anything in this process and frankly if the roles were reversed, this board would be going apoplectic right now with outrage at the remotest hint that we could be blocked or have to pay UCLA one dime for this. I'll take a payout if we can get it, but I don't know the justification for that. Especially since UCLA has an obvious argument. "Look at them. It isn't our fault the Big 10 doesn't want them".southseasbear said:I agree that cancelling the Southern Branch's move to the B1G is unlikely at best. Nevertheless, i would consider it a win if they divert some funding from that school to ours (and maybe the other UCs) on the ground that Westwood will be getting significantly more revenue at our expense as a result of the move.BigDaddy said:gardenstatebear said:
I am surprised that this thread has gone silent (there have been no posts in four days) with the Regents meeting tomorrow. Is it clear to everyone what is going to happen? If so, what is it? Or is there some other reason posts have stopped?
Big Ten or bust (or door No. 3): UC Board of Regents to decide UCLA's fate, finally
UC regents will meet Dec. 14 at UCLA to block or approve the move
After months of discussions and debate, surveys and presentations, the University of California Board of Regents will meet Wednesday to determine the fate of UCLA's planned move to the Big Ten in the summer of 2024.
One way or another, the saga will reach its conclusion following open and closed sessions that are scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. at the Luskin Conference Center at UCLA.
The chance of the governing board overturning the Bruins' move is "extremely unlikely," according to a source familiar with the process.
Rescinding any decision made by a campus chancellor UCLA's Gene Block formalized the Big Ten entry on June 30 could create a dangerous precedent within the UC system.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/12/13/big-ten-or-bust-uc-board-of-regents-to-finally-decide-uclas-fate/
This is pure ant and the grasshopper parable stuff
That isn't true. UCLA athletics does not take any $$$$ from the general fund.
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
I do not believe there is a CMS "bond". There is a general bond(s) issuance for UC construction.BearSD said:C'mon. You think the chancellor or president of every university that would love Big Ten money should be publicly cheerleading for the Big Ten, even if the Big Ten is not interested?CaliforniaEternal said:
That really sounds to me like she cares more about ucla staying than having Cal join the B1G.
The chancellor isn't pumping up Cal joining the Big Ten because she knows the Big Ten isn't inviting anyone else at the present time. Also: The stuff about the regents holding up UCLA's move is purely a play in which the regents are deciding whether to cater to the CMS bondholders by diverting some of UCLA's newly-found riches to them. The regents' backgrounds are in politics and/or big business. They care about the financial institutions that buy the bonds; they don't give a fig about football at Cal or UCLA or any other university.
Take care of your Chicken
Except....and this is critical....a TON of the expense side of the ledger is the cost of a scholarship....which is accounted for as FULL BOAT OUT OF STATE SCHOLARSHIP regardless of whether the kiddo is an instate student likely to qualify for institutional aid.BearlyCareAnymore said:A fact that I think is outrageous. (to be clear, it isn't $100million annually, it is $102M over three years) I just don't see what that has to do with Cal. If the Regents wanted to use the opportunity to impose conditions that their athletic department doesn't run deficits and that they have to pay back anything they already ran up, I'd be all for it. What does that have to do with Cal who is also running large deficits? But I'm not sure we are the ones who should be bringing up paying for athletic deficits. Every other UC may have something to say.Sebastabear said:Yeah except for the fact that UCLA achieved their "success" by running $100 million deficit in athletic spending over the last few years. Money that came from the Regents and ultimately the people of the state of California. So it's not exactly as if they earned anything. Or is it they did it's just happening to be located in the nation's largest media market. Give me $100 million annually and I will put Cal in the top 10. Guaranteed.BearlyCareAnymore said:I don't understand why anyone thinks UCLA owes us anything in this process and frankly if the roles were reversed, this board would be going apoplectic right now with outrage at the remotest hint that we could be blocked or have to pay UCLA one dime for this. I'll take a payout if we can get it, but I don't know the justification for that. Especially since UCLA has an obvious argument. "Look at them. It isn't our fault the Big 10 doesn't want them".southseasbear said:I agree that cancelling the Southern Branch's move to the B1G is unlikely at best. Nevertheless, i would consider it a win if they divert some funding from that school to ours (and maybe the other UCs) on the ground that Westwood will be getting significantly more revenue at our expense as a result of the move.BigDaddy said:gardenstatebear said:
I am surprised that this thread has gone silent (there have been no posts in four days) with the Regents meeting tomorrow. Is it clear to everyone what is going to happen? If so, what is it? Or is there some other reason posts have stopped?
Big Ten or bust (or door No. 3): UC Board of Regents to decide UCLA's fate, finally
UC regents will meet Dec. 14 at UCLA to block or approve the move
After months of discussions and debate, surveys and presentations, the University of California Board of Regents will meet Wednesday to determine the fate of UCLA's planned move to the Big Ten in the summer of 2024.
One way or another, the saga will reach its conclusion following open and closed sessions that are scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. at the Luskin Conference Center at UCLA.
The chance of the governing board overturning the Bruins' move is "extremely unlikely," according to a source familiar with the process.
Rescinding any decision made by a campus chancellor UCLA's Gene Block formalized the Big Ten entry on June 30 could create a dangerous precedent within the UC system.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/12/13/big-ten-or-bust-uc-board-of-regents-to-finally-decide-uclas-fate/
This is pure ant and the grasshopper parable stuff
I'd suggest you read this breakdown.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/27/pac-12-finances-as-covid-whacks-the-budgets-cal-and-ucla-experience-wildly-different-outcomes/
Cal makes their athletic books balance by writing huge checks from the university to the athletic department and calling it revenue. ($20M last year and $25M the year before). UCLA doesn't do that. According to the balance sheets, Cal had athletic revenue of $94M last year and UCLA had $47M. If you were to say that is obviously ludicrous, you'd be right. Bottom line is that Cal has $39M in "revenue" on the athletic department's books last year that was clearly not generated by athletics ($20M which is just a check from the university so is in no way revenue to Cal, just an accounting method of shifting athletic department deficits to the general campus) while UCLA had $3M. Further, UCLA's athletic department pays another campus department for using Pauley Pavillion, which is just taking from one bucket and moving to another. It is shown as debt to the athletic department, but it is not an actual cost to the university as a whole. Cal is also paying for a good chunk of facilities cost (as in a large chunk of the debt service on the stadium - around $11M) out of the general fund, which UCLA doesn't do. (I happen to think it was fair to take that off of the athletic department books, but again, UCLA's athletic department's financial statements have significantly higher facilities expenses because they don't account for the university paying it off out of the general fund). When you account for all of this, Cal is still probably doing less badly than UCLA over the past two years, but it is pretty close. Both departments are losing tons of money. Cal just writes the checks to the athletic department before the financial statements are issued and UCLA writes them after.
Fact is that both Cal and UCLA have been relying on a gravy train that is coming to an end and both should have seen it coming. UCLA thinks they can keep it going by going to the Big 10, which I think is very questionable. Frankly, I think they will get a bigger pay out, will get pummeled in conference, will lose even more of its donors and ticket sales, and have significantly increased expenses and they will be looking at best at a wash and I'd bet they will lose even more money.
And as you say, ultimately it is the people of California that are paying for this (and the students through tuition). It was one thing when it was a few million here or there, but tens of millions is something that gets noticed. Neither should think they can keep doing this much longer.
Anyway, another 90 minutes and things are going to be a LOT clearer
Take care of your Chicken
I am very aware of Cal's financial situation. And I am also aware that UCLA's athletic deficit is if anything larger than what is reflected in these public reports. But the point remains the same. UCLA's deficit dwarfs Cal's while providing scholarships for athletes in 25 sports as opposed to Cal's 30. That's five entire rosters of additional scholarships that Cal is covering. Five rosters of kids who are getting a shot at a college education and all of the benefits that will mean for them throughout their lives that UCLA is not providing. Seems like a good thing for a public school to be doing
UCLA has put themselves in a position where they are legitimately presenting to the regents the fact that either they go to the Big Ten or they have to cut hundreds of student athletes out of their program. This is a situation that they themselves created through their own negligence and miss-management. And yet there continues to be a strong sense in a number of these posts that UCLA "deserves" to go into the Big Ten and Cal does not. Even though UCLA's actions are if anything hurting Cal financially and making it more difficult to run our program than would be the case if UCLA had just acted appropriately.
So you can argue that some payment from UCLA to Cal as a result of this move, which I think is the most likely outcome here, is somehow inappropriate. But I will disagree.
UCLA has put themselves in a position where they are legitimately presenting to the regents the fact that either they go to the Big Ten or they have to cut hundreds of student athletes out of their program. This is a situation that they themselves created through their own negligence and miss-management. And yet there continues to be a strong sense in a number of these posts that UCLA "deserves" to go into the Big Ten and Cal does not. Even though UCLA's actions are if anything hurting Cal financially and making it more difficult to run our program than would be the case if UCLA had just acted appropriately.
So you can argue that some payment from UCLA to Cal as a result of this move, which I think is the most likely outcome here, is somehow inappropriate. But I will disagree.
Maybe. There's nothing binding the Regents to act today. They could kick the can again if they want to. The only thing bureaucrats like more than money is power. We'll see.socaltownie said:
Except....and this is critical....a TON of the expense side of the ledger is the cost of a scholarship....which is accounted for as FULL BOAT OUT OF STATE SCHOLARSHIP regardless of whether the kiddo is an instate student likely to qualify for institutional aid.
Anyway, another 90 minutes and things are going to be a LOT clearer
Yes. Arizona and Oregon are doctoral granting research intstitutions. "R1s" SDSU, except in some very oddball cases, does not grant PhD and faculty advancement/tenure is SUPPOSED to be based upon teaching excellence and skill.PtownBear1 said:sosheezy said:
The notion of keeping SDSU out of the PAC based on some marginal academic difference when they are the clear geographic Number 1 prospect for both travel and market and likely most additive to media rights is insane. Conferences are about football. Conference Survival is about football. If SDSU is the best option for football reasons, you gotta add them.
Is there really a difference academically between SDSU and the Arizona and Oregon schools?
Take care of your Chicken
Let's say everything you're saying is true Sebastabear. Its UCLA's own doing. They created their debt through their own mismanagement. Ok.
Please tell me how this directly impacts Cal? More specifically, how does this negatively impact Cal?
Loss of media revenue? But this is media revenue that we added no value to. Yes, we enjoyed and needed it. But USC brought most of the value in the conference. That is an irrefutable fact.
Loss of rivalry? Rivalries don't matter anymore. And we are talking sports here, not an academic competition.
I'm just trying to figure out what the real financial loss is to Cal. Everyone is saying it. Cal is saying it. Regents are saying it. Newsom is saying it. Kliavkoff is saying it. What is it really beyond media revenue that is tangible?
As far as UCLA acting inappropriately - I've said all along they did exactly what they needed to do in terms of acting within the UCLA Chancellor's role.
Please tell me how this directly impacts Cal? More specifically, how does this negatively impact Cal?
Loss of media revenue? But this is media revenue that we added no value to. Yes, we enjoyed and needed it. But USC brought most of the value in the conference. That is an irrefutable fact.
Loss of rivalry? Rivalries don't matter anymore. And we are talking sports here, not an academic competition.
I'm just trying to figure out what the real financial loss is to Cal. Everyone is saying it. Cal is saying it. Regents are saying it. Newsom is saying it. Kliavkoff is saying it. What is it really beyond media revenue that is tangible?
As far as UCLA acting inappropriately - I've said all along they did exactly what they needed to do in terms of acting within the UCLA Chancellor's role.
BearlyCareAnymore said:A fact that I think is outrageous. (to be clear, it isn't $100million annually, it is $102M over three years) I just don't see what that has to do with Cal. If the Regents wanted to use the opportunity to impose conditions that their athletic department doesn't run deficits and that they have to pay back anything they already ran up, I'd be all for it. What does that have to do with Cal who is also running large deficits? But I'm not sure we are the ones who should be bringing up paying for athletic deficits. Every other UC may have something to say.Sebastabear said:Yeah except for the fact that UCLA achieved their "success" by running $100 million deficit in athletic spending over the last few years. Money that came from the Regents and ultimately the people of the state of California. So it's not exactly as if they earned anything. Or is it they did it's just happening to be located in the nation's largest media market. Give me $100 million annually and I will put Cal in the top 10. Guaranteed.BearlyCareAnymore said:I don't understand why anyone thinks UCLA owes us anything in this process and frankly if the roles were reversed, this board would be going apoplectic right now with outrage at the remotest hint that we could be blocked or have to pay UCLA one dime for this. I'll take a payout if we can get it, but I don't know the justification for that. Especially since UCLA has an obvious argument. "Look at them. It isn't our fault the Big 10 doesn't want them".southseasbear said:I agree that cancelling the Southern Branch's move to the B1G is unlikely at best. Nevertheless, i would consider it a win if they divert some funding from that school to ours (and maybe the other UCs) on the ground that Westwood will be getting significantly more revenue at our expense as a result of the move.BigDaddy said:gardenstatebear said:
I am surprised that this thread has gone silent (there have been no posts in four days) with the Regents meeting tomorrow. Is it clear to everyone what is going to happen? If so, what is it? Or is there some other reason posts have stopped?
Big Ten or bust (or door No. 3): UC Board of Regents to decide UCLA's fate, finally
UC regents will meet Dec. 14 at UCLA to block or approve the move
After months of discussions and debate, surveys and presentations, the University of California Board of Regents will meet Wednesday to determine the fate of UCLA's planned move to the Big Ten in the summer of 2024.
One way or another, the saga will reach its conclusion following open and closed sessions that are scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. at the Luskin Conference Center at UCLA.
The chance of the governing board overturning the Bruins' move is "extremely unlikely," according to a source familiar with the process.
Rescinding any decision made by a campus chancellor UCLA's Gene Block formalized the Big Ten entry on June 30 could create a dangerous precedent within the UC system.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/12/13/big-ten-or-bust-uc-board-of-regents-to-finally-decide-uclas-fate/
This is pure ant and the grasshopper parable stuff
I'd suggest you read this breakdown.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/27/pac-12-finances-as-covid-whacks-the-budgets-cal-and-ucla-experience-wildly-different-outcomes/
Cal makes their athletic books balance by writing huge checks from the university to the athletic department and calling it revenue. ($20M last year and $25M the year before). UCLA doesn't do that. According to the balance sheets, Cal had athletic revenue of $94M last year and UCLA had $47M. If you were to say that is obviously ludicrous, you'd be right. Bottom line is that Cal has $39M in "revenue" on the athletic department's books last year that was clearly not generated by athletics ($20M which is just a check from the university so is in no way revenue to Cal, just an accounting method of shifting athletic department deficits to the general campus) while UCLA had $3M. Further, UCLA's athletic department pays another campus department for using Pauley Pavillion, which is just taking from one bucket and moving to another. It is shown as debt to the athletic department, but it is not an actual cost to the university as a whole. Cal is also paying for a good chunk of facilities cost (as in a large chunk of the debt service on the stadium - around $11M) out of the general fund, which UCLA doesn't do. (I happen to think it was fair to take that off of the athletic department books, but again, UCLA's athletic department's financial statements have significantly higher facilities expenses because they don't account for the university paying it off out of the general fund). When you account for all of this, Cal is still probably doing less badly than UCLA over the past two years, but it is pretty close. Both departments are losing tons of money. Cal just writes the checks to the athletic department before the financial statements are issued and UCLA writes them after.
Fact is that both Cal and UCLA have been relying on a gravy train that is coming to an end and both should have seen it coming. UCLA thinks they can keep it going by going to the Big 10, which I think is very questionable. Frankly, I think they will get a bigger pay out, will get pummeled in conference, will lose even more of its donors and ticket sales, and have significantly increased expenses and they will be looking at best at a wash and I'd bet they will lose even more money.
And as you say, ultimately it is the people of California that are paying for this (and the students through tuition). It was one thing when it was a few million here or there, but tens of millions is something that gets noticed. Neither should think they can keep doing this much longer.
Edit:
Doing a little more on this. During the same three year time period that UCLA lost $102M, Cal wrote roughly $50M in checks to the athletic department directly and paid $33M toward athletic facilities that UCLA does not pay for their athletic department. And even including those contributions to the athletic department, Cal athletics lost $12.5 over that period. So my math says you have $95.5M of that $100M you were looking for to guarantee that top 10 finish. That doesn't include a $17M "other operating revenue" last year that is not explained and is not normal when compared to prior years, and some other revenue items that are hard to map to anything and are not included in UCLA's balance sheets.
There is simply no way Cal athletics made $47M more in revenue than UCLA (double) last year. If you told me Cal's expenses were a lot lower (they weren't), I'd believe you. But I'm not believing that revenue number. (and given we know at least $20M was not real, I have pretty good reason not to believe it.
Good post. One note: UCLA pays rent to the Rose Bowl whereas Cal has "free" use of CMS.
They may not give a fig about Cal athletics, but they certainly care about the CMS bonds, (and it's not bcos they care about the bondholders/investors). They care about about the bonds bcos they are on the hook for them. If Cal Athletics defaults, the UC Regents ultimately have to pick up the bill. That campus debt is their debt.BearSD said:C'mon. You think the chancellor or president of every university that would love Big Ten money should be publicly cheerleading for the Big Ten, even if the Big Ten is not interested?CaliforniaEternal said:
That really sounds to me like she cares more about ucla staying than having Cal join the B1G.
The chancellor isn't pumping up Cal joining the Big Ten because she knows the Big Ten isn't inviting anyone else at the present time. Also: The stuff about the regents holding up UCLA's move is purely a play in which the regents are deciding whether to cater to the CMS bondholders by diverting some of UCLA's newly-found riches to them. The regents' backgrounds are in politics and/or big business. They care about the financial institutions that buy the bonds; they don't give a fig about football at Cal or UCLA or any other university.
UCLA's deficit does not dwarf Cal's anywhere but on a balance sheet. That is clear. If UCLA had paid $83M to athletics out of the general fund like Cal did the last three years, their deficit over that time period would be $19M and ours would be $12.5. (I'm hoping that "other operating revenue" for Cal means an anonymous donor bailed us out, in which case, hey, that $17M is fair to call revenue. Just can't expect it again)Sebastabear said:
I am very aware of Cal's financial situation. And I am also aware that UCLA's athletic deficit is if anything larger than what is reflected in these public reports. But the point remains the same. UCLA's deficit dwarfs Cal's while providing scholarships for athletes in 25 sports as opposed to Cal's 30. That's five entire rosters of additional scholarships that Cal is covering. Five rosters of kids who are getting a shot at a college education and all of the benefits that will mean for them throughout their lives that UCLA is not providing. Seems like a good thing for a public school to be doing
UCLA has put themselves in a position where they are legitimately presenting to the regents the fact that either they go to the Big Ten or they have to cut hundreds of student athletes out of their program. This is a situation that they themselves created through their own negligence and miss-management. And yet there continues to be a strong sense in a number of these posts that UCLA "deserves" to go into the Big Ten and Cal does not. Even though UCLA's actions are if anything hurting Cal financially and making it more difficult to run our program than would be the case if UCLA had just acted appropriately.
So you can argue that some payment from UCLA to Cal as a result of this move, which I think is the most likely outcome here, is somehow inappropriate. But I will disagree.
Cal should have cut several sports years ago. I don't see that as a charity. I see that as fiscally irresponsible. And those five rosters of kids who are getting a shot at a college education and all the benefits for them throughout their lives would have just gone to the same number of kids who paid for it, either out of their pocket, with loans, or with financial aid, and I don't see any reason why the latter group is less deserving of the opportunity than the former.
And I would still say that even if all you say is true, Cal is not the injured party based on UCLA's spending. And we both know that if UCLA and Cal athletics both had identical losses over the past three years, UCLA would still be getting the Big 10 invite and Cal still wouldn't be. UCLA wasn't even very successful. They got the invite based on TV market, recruiting base, and their historical success in sports, none of which we can offer. It is not UCLA's or USC's responsibility to stay in the Pac 12 to keep the Pac-12's media contracts more lucrative.
In either case, whatever money the Regents are debating UCLA should pay to Cal, I'd say take $5, go to Starbucks and buy a cup of coffee, then throw the rest down the toilet. At least you'd have a cup of coffee which is more than you will end up with giving it to either Cal or UCLA.
The thing that the regents should be debating is whether it is appropriate that the two most elite universities in the system chucked $200M in athletics losses over 3 years and whether either one should be allowed to keep doing that.
socaltownie said:Except....and this is critical....a TON of the expense side of the ledger is the cost of a scholarship....which is accounted for as FULL BOAT OUT OF STATE SCHOLARSHIP regardless of whether the kiddo is an instate student likely to qualify for institutional aid.BearlyCareAnymore said:A fact that I think is outrageous. (to be clear, it isn't $100million annually, it is $102M over three years) I just don't see what that has to do with Cal. If the Regents wanted to use the opportunity to impose conditions that their athletic department doesn't run deficits and that they have to pay back anything they already ran up, I'd be all for it. What does that have to do with Cal who is also running large deficits? But I'm not sure we are the ones who should be bringing up paying for athletic deficits. Every other UC may have something to say.Sebastabear said:Yeah except for the fact that UCLA achieved their "success" by running $100 million deficit in athletic spending over the last few years. Money that came from the Regents and ultimately the people of the state of California. So it's not exactly as if they earned anything. Or is it they did it's just happening to be located in the nation's largest media market. Give me $100 million annually and I will put Cal in the top 10. Guaranteed.BearlyCareAnymore said:I don't understand why anyone thinks UCLA owes us anything in this process and frankly if the roles were reversed, this board would be going apoplectic right now with outrage at the remotest hint that we could be blocked or have to pay UCLA one dime for this. I'll take a payout if we can get it, but I don't know the justification for that. Especially since UCLA has an obvious argument. "Look at them. It isn't our fault the Big 10 doesn't want them".southseasbear said:I agree that cancelling the Southern Branch's move to the B1G is unlikely at best. Nevertheless, i would consider it a win if they divert some funding from that school to ours (and maybe the other UCs) on the ground that Westwood will be getting significantly more revenue at our expense as a result of the move.BigDaddy said:gardenstatebear said:
I am surprised that this thread has gone silent (there have been no posts in four days) with the Regents meeting tomorrow. Is it clear to everyone what is going to happen? If so, what is it? Or is there some other reason posts have stopped?
Big Ten or bust (or door No. 3): UC Board of Regents to decide UCLA's fate, finally
UC regents will meet Dec. 14 at UCLA to block or approve the move
After months of discussions and debate, surveys and presentations, the University of California Board of Regents will meet Wednesday to determine the fate of UCLA's planned move to the Big Ten in the summer of 2024.
One way or another, the saga will reach its conclusion following open and closed sessions that are scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. at the Luskin Conference Center at UCLA.
The chance of the governing board overturning the Bruins' move is "extremely unlikely," according to a source familiar with the process.
Rescinding any decision made by a campus chancellor UCLA's Gene Block formalized the Big Ten entry on June 30 could create a dangerous precedent within the UC system.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/12/13/big-ten-or-bust-uc-board-of-regents-to-finally-decide-uclas-fate/
This is pure ant and the grasshopper parable stuff
I'd suggest you read this breakdown.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/27/pac-12-finances-as-covid-whacks-the-budgets-cal-and-ucla-experience-wildly-different-outcomes/
Cal makes their athletic books balance by writing huge checks from the university to the athletic department and calling it revenue. ($20M last year and $25M the year before). UCLA doesn't do that. According to the balance sheets, Cal had athletic revenue of $94M last year and UCLA had $47M. If you were to say that is obviously ludicrous, you'd be right. Bottom line is that Cal has $39M in "revenue" on the athletic department's books last year that was clearly not generated by athletics ($20M which is just a check from the university so is in no way revenue to Cal, just an accounting method of shifting athletic department deficits to the general campus) while UCLA had $3M. Further, UCLA's athletic department pays another campus department for using Pauley Pavillion, which is just taking from one bucket and moving to another. It is shown as debt to the athletic department, but it is not an actual cost to the university as a whole. Cal is also paying for a good chunk of facilities cost (as in a large chunk of the debt service on the stadium - around $11M) out of the general fund, which UCLA doesn't do. (I happen to think it was fair to take that off of the athletic department books, but again, UCLA's athletic department's financial statements have significantly higher facilities expenses because they don't account for the university paying it off out of the general fund). When you account for all of this, Cal is still probably doing less badly than UCLA over the past two years, but it is pretty close. Both departments are losing tons of money. Cal just writes the checks to the athletic department before the financial statements are issued and UCLA writes them after.
Fact is that both Cal and UCLA have been relying on a gravy train that is coming to an end and both should have seen it coming. UCLA thinks they can keep it going by going to the Big 10, which I think is very questionable. Frankly, I think they will get a bigger pay out, will get pummeled in conference, will lose even more of its donors and ticket sales, and have significantly increased expenses and they will be looking at best at a wash and I'd bet they will lose even more money.
And as you say, ultimately it is the people of California that are paying for this (and the students through tuition). It was one thing when it was a few million here or there, but tens of millions is something that gets noticed. Neither should think they can keep doing this much longer.
Anyway, another 90 minutes and things are going to be a LOT clearer
Scholarships for California residents should absolutely be counted as in-state tuition.
If one result is that almost all non-revenue sports scholarships (and admissions slots) at Cal and UCLA go to California residents, even if at the cost of national championships, so be it. That is appropriate for public universities owned by the state's taxpayers.
One last thing, Sebasta. You are one of the greatest bears around and your support is awesome. It pains me that I can't see eye to eye on you on this. I just can't do this anymore. Chucking $300M on the stadium only to still run athletics into the ground and then three of the most ridiculously negligent contract extensions I have ever seen has broken it for me. It was one thing when we were running a few mil in debt to have a below average to average to sometimes even above average program. People spending 10's of millions to be horrible? I'm sorry, they can't be trusted fiscally with this anymore. They are now hurting the university.Sebastabear said:
I am very aware of Cal's financial situation. And I am also aware that UCLA's athletic deficit is if anything larger than what is reflected in these public reports. But the point remains the same. UCLA's deficit dwarfs Cal's while providing scholarships for athletes in 25 sports as opposed to Cal's 30. That's five entire rosters of additional scholarships that Cal is covering. Five rosters of kids who are getting a shot at a college education and all of the benefits that will mean for them throughout their lives that UCLA is not providing. Seems like a good thing for a public school to be doing
UCLA has put themselves in a position where they are legitimately presenting to the regents the fact that either they go to the Big Ten or they have to cut hundreds of student athletes out of their program. This is a situation that they themselves created through their own negligence and miss-management. And yet there continues to be a strong sense in a number of these posts that UCLA "deserves" to go into the Big Ten and Cal does not. Even though UCLA's actions are if anything hurting Cal financially and making it more difficult to run our program than would be the case if UCLA had just acted appropriately.
So you can argue that some payment from UCLA to Cal as a result of this move, which I think is the most likely outcome here, is somehow inappropriate. But I will disagree.
I love that you still believe. Don't ever stop on my account.
Featured Stories
See All
Cal Football Tuesday Weekly Presser
by Jim McGill
The Rodcast: It Looked Unfair
by Rod Benson
Cal Trio Earns ACC Weekly Honors
by Cal Athletics
Cal Knocks Out No. 2 Duke, Advances To ACC Semifinals
by Cal Athletics
Bears Win Crazy Affair in 46-36 Victory at Wake Forest
by Jim McGill