This is just ridiculous. The Ucla deficit is discretionary spending. The Cal deficit is primarily debt service on campus infrastructure. CMS isn't going anywhere. It's a National Historic Register building. If it's there, it has to be used for something. If it has to be occupied by people it has to be safe. If it's going to be used it might as well be used for its intended purpose. Ucla doesn't have to spend millions per year on gourmet catered food. Cal had no choice but to retrofit CMS.BearlyCareAnymore said:
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)
The Latest Rumors
261,892 Views |
1901 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Bobodeluxe
So....because we currently have bad management, you're in favor of eviscerating any future possibility of righting the ship and still providing opportunities for scholarship athletes. That's a little baffling to me...if a company has bad management, just shut the thing down and sell all the furniture rather than getter better management onboard when the basic operation isn't a lost cause?BearlyCareAnymore said: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.
agree should. But they are not. It is why any AD debt really needs to be considered with a serious grain of salt. Or that UCLA could not have simply "foregiven" a significant part of the debt with minimal impacts.calumnus said: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.
Take care of your Chicken
This is true. Absent the retrofit the campus would have eventually needed to somehow TRY to demonlish it....as you point out it is a NHR building so it would have been significantly difficult.WalterSobchak said:This is just ridiculous. The Ucla deficit is discretionary spending. The Cal deficit is primarily debt service on campus infrastructure. CMS isn't going anywhere. It's a National Historic Register building. If it's there, it has to be used for something. If it has to be occupied by people it has to be safe. If it's going to be used it might as well be used for its intended purpose. Ucla doesn't have to spend millions per year on gourmet catered food. Cal had no choice but to retrofit CMS.BearlyCareAnymore said:
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)
Take care of your Chicken
No, what he's saying is (if I may, BearlyCareAnymore) is, if we are to acknowledge the bad management in the company, we wouldn't be offering them extensions to their contracts. Moreover, if a company is managed poorly, it may often lead to poor product. And if we are customers, why should we continue to pay for a poor product?
Negative. NHR is not an ironclad prohibition.socaltownie said:This is true. Absent the retrofit the campus would have eventually needed to somehow TRY to demonlish it....as you point out it is a NHR building so it would have been significantly difficult.WalterSobchak said:This is just ridiculous. The Ucla deficit is discretionary spending. The Cal deficit is primarily debt service on campus infrastructure. CMS isn't going anywhere. It's a National Historic Register building. If it's there, it has to be used for something. If it has to be occupied by people it has to be safe. If it's going to be used it might as well be used for its intended purpose. Ucla doesn't have to spend millions per year on gourmet catered food. Cal had no choice but to retrofit CMS.BearlyCareAnymore said:
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)
The NHR would require UC to jump thru a couple of extra hoops in CA (for alternative uses), but demolishment of a seismically unsafe stadium would not have been that difficult (as there are no alternative uses).
Look at it this way: if UC really was prohibited from demolishing CMS, the Athletic Dept could have just held out and forced UC to fix it in accordance with State seismic safety laws.
Yeah Cal could easily have avoided CMS debt but what other food choices did Ucla have?Big Dog said:Negative. NHR is not an ironclad prohibition.socaltownie said:This is true. Absent the retrofit the campus would have eventually needed to somehow TRY to demonlish it....as you point out it is a NHR building so it would have been significantly difficult.WalterSobchak said:This is just ridiculous. The Ucla deficit is discretionary spending. The Cal deficit is primarily debt service on campus infrastructure. CMS isn't going anywhere. It's a National Historic Register building. If it's there, it has to be used for something. If it has to be occupied by people it has to be safe. If it's going to be used it might as well be used for its intended purpose. Ucla doesn't have to spend millions per year on gourmet catered food. Cal had no choice but to retrofit CMS.BearlyCareAnymore said:
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)
The NHR would require UC to jump thru a couple of extra hoops in CA (for alternative uses), but demolishment of a seismically unsafe stadium would not have been that difficult (as there are no alternative uses).
Look at it this way: if UC really was prohibited from demolishing CMS, the Athletic Dept could have just held out and forced UC to fix it in accordance with State seismic safety laws.
Does anyone remember the architectural critic Allan Temko? He proposed that California Memorial Stadium be demolished and turned into a "Tuscan village" for student residences. He wanted the same for the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. According to him, both should have been moved to the Marina or someplace close to railroad tracks. His opinions of most Berkeley campus architecture were scathing, e.g. about Dwinelle Hall, he wrote, "how do you expect to get a liberal education in such illiberal buildings?"
LOL. Maybe in YOUR berg. I can tell you in San Diego (and I would imagine Berkeley is MUCH worse) the challenges would be ridiculous. Yes. UC land. Berkeley, however, would surely need to issue a demolition permit and a host of other regulatory acts, opening that discretionary action open to litigation and delay.Big Dog said:Negative. NHR is not an ironclad prohibition.socaltownie said:This is true. Absent the retrofit the campus would have eventually needed to somehow TRY to demonlish it....as you point out it is a NHR building so it would have been significantly difficult.WalterSobchak said:This is just ridiculous. The Ucla deficit is discretionary spending. The Cal deficit is primarily debt service on campus infrastructure. CMS isn't going anywhere. It's a National Historic Register building. If it's there, it has to be used for something. If it has to be occupied by people it has to be safe. If it's going to be used it might as well be used for its intended purpose. Ucla doesn't have to spend millions per year on gourmet catered food. Cal had no choice but to retrofit CMS.BearlyCareAnymore said:
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)
The NHR would require UC to jump thru a couple of extra hoops in CA (for alternative uses), but demolishment of a seismically unsafe stadium would not have been that difficult (as there are no alternative uses).
Look at it this way: if UC really was prohibited from demolishing CMS, the Athletic Dept could have just held out and forced UC to fix it in accordance with State seismic safety laws.
If you want "fun" google "California Theater" to see how much that desgination can gum up the works.
Take care of your Chicken
The reason we are bringing up UCLA's deficits is that is their argument for why they HAD to do the deal, and why they HAD to do it at the last possible second without asking for permission first. It was either take this deal or start cutting sports.
That has nothing to do with Cal's management or mismanagement, its UCLA's excuse for not asking for permission.
If UCLA had not waited until the last possible second to avoid Pac exit fees and asked for proper permission there likely wouldn't be much of an argument with the regents. But they did. They did it at the last possible second without a full plan of what they were planning to do or how...just that B1G money > Pac money.
They didn't talk to the regents. They didn't plan out the increased travel impact on their student athletes. They didn't take into account potential damages to another UC School. They took the path of "Its easier to ask for forgiveness than permission", and the regents are taking exception to that.
From what I can tell, the regents are more pissed about the lack of planning than they are what is actually happening. Any monetary penalty would be to dissuade this type of behavior in the future. Cal being a recipient would just be fortunate for us (and make sense given UCLA's disregard for their impact on Cal's athletics).
That has nothing to do with Cal's management or mismanagement, its UCLA's excuse for not asking for permission.
If UCLA had not waited until the last possible second to avoid Pac exit fees and asked for proper permission there likely wouldn't be much of an argument with the regents. But they did. They did it at the last possible second without a full plan of what they were planning to do or how...just that B1G money > Pac money.
They didn't talk to the regents. They didn't plan out the increased travel impact on their student athletes. They didn't take into account potential damages to another UC School. They took the path of "Its easier to ask for forgiveness than permission", and the regents are taking exception to that.
From what I can tell, the regents are more pissed about the lack of planning than they are what is actually happening. Any monetary penalty would be to dissuade this type of behavior in the future. Cal being a recipient would just be fortunate for us (and make sense given UCLA's disregard for their impact on Cal's athletics).
No. Because we have had sixty years of bad sports management I see righting the ship differently from you. Even the total mishandling of the stadium rebuild and financing goes back 15 years.Not current management. Flushing the football program down the drain by not paying a few hundred K to Tosh Lupoi after spending $300M is not current management.juarezbear said:So....because we currently have bad management, you're in favor of eviscerating any future possibility of righting the ship and still providing opportunities for scholarship athletes. That's a little baffling to me...if a company has bad management, just shut the thing down and sell all the furniture rather than getter better management onboard when the basic operation isn't a lost cause?BearlyCareAnymore said: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.
I say this as someone who was raised on Cal football going to almost every home game from the time I was 5 years old. This is a university. Athletics is a diversion. Athletics are there to serve the university. What we pay for them has to be a net benefit to the university. At $30M (and that is a conservative number) a year, no I don't think it is a net benefit anymore. I don't see that basketball is providing a benefit to campus. I don't see that Cal is actually going to fix that. Football does provide a benefit, but I think it is much smaller than when I was a student and side things like the band are a shadow of what they used to be. I don't believe that benefit is coming close to the $30M loss.
There are other programs that bring prestige to the university, but those pretty much pay for themselves through donors. There are a whole lot of programs that as far as I can see give a handful of students the chance to keep playing in front of their parents for 4 more years.
I'm sorry, but providing opportunities for scholarship athletes is not important to me. They are no more or less deserving of the opportunities than the kids who worked their asses off in the classroom. Frankly, most of the athletes outside of football and basketball are not in need of a financial opportunity. They will be going to a good college either way. The sports have to provide net benefit to the university or at least be neutral.
Cal sports cost at minimum $700 per student at the university last year. (Net) I'm going to tell you there is no way that Cal sports gave close to $700 benefit per student last year. If you think I'm wrong, let's ask the students. When I was there, we voted on adding a fee for athletics. (It was voted down). If students are willing to pay several hundred in addition to their tuition, I guess they think it is worth it. (they won't). UC Davis students approved a fee that pays for much of their athletic programs. Put it to a vote and let the students tell you what value they are getting from this. Or donors can step up and defray the cost. If donors and or students don't want to pay for it, it is hard to argue that people are seeing the value.
But I'm not against some campus subsidy in line with the value athletics bring. They do not bring $30M. And growing every year. This has gotten out of hand.
And the fact is that athletics is NEVER going to play any factor in who is picked to be chancellor at Cal. If you get a chancellor who cares about and is good at managing sports, it will be sheer luck. And it hasn't happened yet.
As I said, when it was a few million I was fine. This is not the Golden State Warriors where it isn't my problem if the owners want to pay huge amounts in salary's and tax on an entity that is a basketball team. This is tens of millions of dollars being diverted from academics for what I see is very little gain.
From what people are saying in the room, before the meeting got disrupted by protestors, is that there may not even be a "tax" to Cal. although that still might happen. More likely is a detailed plan and infrastructure in place for increased travel and time away from school.
That was probably better than my more verbose explanation. And taxpayers, alums, and students are the customers. We are being sold week old big macs at French Laundry prices. And the fact is that we aren't buying it. If we were, ticket sales, donations and student fees would be making up the cost. The fact that we can chuck taxpayer money at the issue to the detriment of the students without asking them doesn't mean we should be doing it.philly1121 said:
No, what he's saying is (if I may, BearlyCareAnymore) is, if we are to acknowledge the bad management in the company, we wouldn't be offering them extensions to their contracts. Moreover, if a company is managed poorly, it may often lead to poor product. And if we are customers, why should we continue to pay for a poor product?
When did you change your user name and what was your old one?
This is simply not true. Cal spent at least $45M in discretionary spending in the last 2 years - straight up checks paid from the campus to athletics and called "revenue" on the books and that is just what was paid out of the general fund. That is in addition to the $40M in debt service. ($18M attributed to athletics, $22M to general fund). Cal athletics spent $91.5 M last year. $9M was the debt service. There was another $11M in the debt service for the stadium that is paid directly by the general fund. So if we accounted the same way UCLA does, $102.5 in athletics expenses, ($20M from debt service). UCLA had $110M in expenses ($9.3 in debt service and leases).WalterSobchak said:This is just ridiculous. The Ucla deficit is discretionary spending. The Cal deficit is primarily debt service on campus infrastructure. CMS isn't going anywhere. It's a National Historic Register building. If it's there, it has to be used for something. If it has to be occupied by people it has to be safe. If it's going to be used it might as well be used for its intended purpose. Ucla doesn't have to spend millions per year on gourmet catered food. Cal had no choice but to retrofit CMS.BearlyCareAnymore said:
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)
Cal didn't need to spend $300M on the stadium. The majority of that was above and beyond the retrofit. Cal athletics is actually not paying for the stadium. They are paying for the training facility. The campus is paying for the retrofit.
But regardless, they both have to play somewhere. Cal pays for the stadium debt, over half of which was discretionary. UCLA has to pay Pasadena. I think it is fair to count those the same. UCLA renovated Pauley for $136M and has its own debt service. It badly needed it. (I'm sure they did it up better than they had to, but they didn't attach a whole new training facility to the project). And UCLA athletics is both responsible for the debt and also has to pay the campus for the use of the facility. Cal athletics is paying nothing for Haas. UCLA can make the same argument for Pauley that you are making for CMS.
When you break down the numbers, UCLA's and Cal's spending is pretty close to the same both in amount and in the breakdown. The difference is UCLA is not cooking the books by giving athletics a bunch of money and calling it revenue on its balance sheet. UCLA did spend more, but it isn't outlandishly more especially given the fact that most years they bring in more revenue.
The expenses of the two departments are pretty similar. It is the revenue that is different and that is because Cal is frankly fudging that. You can't possibly believe that Cal athletics brought in twice what UCLA athletics brought in.
The UC Regents are in closed session. A scenario they are considering is allowing UCLA to leave for the Big Ten, but putting into writing financial guarantees that would address mental health, academic, travel burdens. Also under consideration but less certain - a "Berkeley tax."
— Billy Witz (@billywitz) December 14, 2022
You've obviously done the analysis. Link your spreadsheets.BearlyCareAnymore said:This is simply not true. Cal spent at least $45M in discretionary spending in the last 2 years - straight up checks paid from the campus to athletics and called "revenue" on the books and that is just what was paid out of the general fund. That is in addition to the $40M in debt service. ($18M attributed to athletics, $22M to general fund)WalterSobchak said:This is just ridiculous. The Ucla deficit is discretionary spending. The Cal deficit is primarily debt service on campus infrastructure. CMS isn't going anywhere. It's a National Historic Register building. If it's there, it has to be used for something. If it has to be occupied by people it has to be safe. If it's going to be used it might as well be used for its intended purpose. Ucla doesn't have to spend millions per year on gourmet catered food. Cal had no choice but to retrofit CMS.BearlyCareAnymore said:
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)
Cal didn't need to spend $300M on the stadium. The majority of that was above and beyond the retrofit.
But regardless, they both have to play somewhere. Cal pays for the stadium debt, over half of which was discretionary. UCLA has to pay Pasadena. I think it is fair to count those the same. UCLA renovated Pauley for $136M and has its own debt service. It badly needed it. (I'm sure they did it up better than they had to, but they didn't attach a whole new training facility to the project). And UCLA athletics is both responsible for the debt and also has to pay the campus for the use of the facility. Cal athletics is paying nothing for Haas. UCLA can make the same argument for Pauley that you are making for CMS.
When you break down the numbers, UCLA's and Cal's spending is pretty close to the same both in amount and in the breakdown. The difference is UCLA is not cooking the books by giving athletics a bunch of money and calling it revenue on its balance sheet.
The expenses of the two departments are pretty similar. It is the revenue that is different and that is because Cal is frankly fudging that. You can't possibly believe that Cal athletics brought in twice what UCLA athletics brought in.
BearlyCareAnymore said:No. Because we have had sixty years of bad sports management I see righting the ship differently from you. Even the total mishandling of the stadium rebuild and financing goes back 15 years.Not current management. Flushing the football program down the drain by not paying a few hundred K to Tosh Lupoi after spending $300M is not current management.juarezbear said:So....because we currently have bad management, you're in favor of eviscerating any future possibility of righting the ship and still providing opportunities for scholarship athletes. That's a little baffling to me...if a company has bad management, just shut the thing down and sell all the furniture rather than getter better management onboard when the basic operation isn't a lost cause?BearlyCareAnymore said: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.
I say this as someone who was raised on Cal football going to almost every home game from the time I was 5 years old. This is a university. Athletics is a diversion. Athletics are there to serve the university. What we pay for them has to be a net benefit to the university. At $30M (and that is a conservative number) a year, no I don't think it is a net benefit anymore. I don't see that basketball is providing a benefit to campus. I don't see that Cal is actually going to fix that. Football does provide a benefit, but I think it is much smaller than when I was a student and side things like the band are a shadow of what they used to be. I don't believe that benefit is coming close to the $30M loss.
There are other programs that bring prestige to the university, but those pretty much pay for themselves through donors. There are a whole lot of programs that as far as I can see give a handful of students the chance to keep playing in front of their parents for 4 more years.
I'm sorry, but providing opportunities for scholarship athletes is not important to me. They are no more or less deserving of the opportunities than the kids who worked their asses off in the classroom. Frankly, most of the athletes outside of football and basketball are not in need of a financial opportunity. They will be going to a good college either way. The sports have to provide net benefit to the university or at least be neutral.
Cal sports cost at minimum $700 per student at the university last year. (Net) I'm going to tell you there is no way that Cal sports gave close to $700 benefit per student last year. If you think I'm wrong, let's ask the students. When I was there, we voted on adding a fee for athletics. (It was voted down). If students are willing to pay several hundred in addition to their tuition, I guess they think it is worth it. (they won't). UC Davis students approved a fee that pays for much of their athletic programs. Put it to a vote and let the students tell you what value they are getting from this. Or donors can step up and defray the cost. If donors and or students don't want to pay for it, it is hard to argue that people are seeing the value.
But I'm not against some campus subsidy in line with the value athletics bring. They do not bring $30M. And growing every year. This has gotten out of hand.
And the fact is that athletics is NEVER going to play any factor in who is picked to be chancellor at Cal. If you get a chancellor who cares about and is good at managing sports, it will be sheer luck. And it hasn't happened yet.
As I said, when it was a few million I was fine. This is not the Golden State Warriors where it isn't my problem if the owners want to pay huge amounts in salary's and tax on an entity that is a basketball team. This is tens of millions of dollars being diverted from academics for what I see is very little gain.
Agree that athletics plays no role in the selection of chancellor. That is why the process of selecting an AD should not be left to the chancellor alone. At a minimum, the the university should have an "athletics advisory council" that the chancellor can lean on for selection and oversight of the AD.
Used to be OaktownBear.WalterSobchak said:
When did you change your user name and what was your old one?
And that's bcos Theaters can have alternate uses. UCI, for example, uses a neighborhood theater for a classroom during the day.socaltownie said:LOL. Maybe in YOUR berg. I can tell you in San Diego (and I would imagine Berkeley is MUCH worse) the challenges would be ridiculous. Yes. UC land. Berkeley, however, would surely need to issue a demolition permit and a host of other regulatory acts, opening that discretionary action open to litigation and delay.Big Dog said:Negative. NHR is not an ironclad prohibition.socaltownie said:This is true. Absent the retrofit the campus would have eventually needed to somehow TRY to demonlish it....as you point out it is a NHR building so it would have been significantly difficult.WalterSobchak said:This is just ridiculous. The Ucla deficit is discretionary spending. The Cal deficit is primarily debt service on campus infrastructure. CMS isn't going anywhere. It's a National Historic Register building. If it's there, it has to be used for something. If it has to be occupied by people it has to be safe. If it's going to be used it might as well be used for its intended purpose. Ucla doesn't have to spend millions per year on gourmet catered food. Cal had no choice but to retrofit CMS.BearlyCareAnymore said:
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)
The NHR would require UC to jump thru a couple of extra hoops in CA (for alternative uses), but demolishment of a seismically unsafe stadium would not have been that difficult (as there are no alternative uses).
Look at it this way: if UC really was prohibited from demolishing CMS, the Athletic Dept could have just held out and forced UC to fix it in accordance with State seismic safety laws.
If you want "fun" google "California Theater" to see how much that desgination can gum up the works.
Crumbling stadium walls that do not meet CA seismic laws, do not have any alternative use but to hold up the stands. And I can guarantee you, if Cal wanted to play football at the Coliseum or anywhere else, the locals would have rejoiced and helped pay for the demo permits. (They would have objected to anything being built on that land, but not the demo itself.)
btw: are you referencing the one in San Bernardino?
No. Downtown San DiegoBig Dog said:And that's bcos Theaters can have alternate uses. UCI, for example, uses a neighborhood theater for a classroom during the day.socaltownie said:LOL. Maybe in YOUR berg. I can tell you in San Diego (and I would imagine Berkeley is MUCH worse) the challenges would be ridiculous. Yes. UC land. Berkeley, however, would surely need to issue a demolition permit and a host of other regulatory acts, opening that discretionary action open to litigation and delay.Big Dog said:Negative. NHR is not an ironclad prohibition.socaltownie said:This is true. Absent the retrofit the campus would have eventually needed to somehow TRY to demonlish it....as you point out it is a NHR building so it would have been significantly difficult.WalterSobchak said:This is just ridiculous. The Ucla deficit is discretionary spending. The Cal deficit is primarily debt service on campus infrastructure. CMS isn't going anywhere. It's a National Historic Register building. If it's there, it has to be used for something. If it has to be occupied by people it has to be safe. If it's going to be used it might as well be used for its intended purpose. Ucla doesn't have to spend millions per year on gourmet catered food. Cal had no choice but to retrofit CMS.BearlyCareAnymore said:
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)
The NHR would require UC to jump thru a couple of extra hoops in CA (for alternative uses), but demolishment of a seismically unsafe stadium would not have been that difficult (as there are no alternative uses).
Look at it this way: if UC really was prohibited from demolishing CMS, the Athletic Dept could have just held out and forced UC to fix it in accordance with State seismic safety laws.
If you want "fun" google "California Theater" to see how much that desgination can gum up the works.
Crumbling stadium walls that do not meet CA seismic laws, do not have any alternative use but to hold up the stands. And I can guarantee you, if Cal wanted to play football at the Coliseum or anywhere else, the locals would have rejoiced and helped pay for the demo permits. (They would have objected to anything being built on that land, but not the demo itself.)
btw: are you referencing the one in San Bernardino?
Take care of your Chicken
Everyone relax. The train has left the station. Or the ship has left the dock. Whatever is your favorite.
This whole thing only highlights our problems. We can't complain about UCLA trying to fix theirs by bailing on us. UCLA is leaving because they're $100+ million in the hole. Great. So now the the Pac10 can finalize a media deal and see how much we're really worth. Which isn't going to be a whole lot. And we're crying about it.
Well when we talk about value I sure hope we now look at it within the context of our own house, not anyone else's. Maybe instead of gravy training off the two schools that brought the most value to the media rights deal, we should figure out how we can increase our inherent value. And that means stop extending out contracts to coaches so they won't leave. Not because they want to stay. But so that they won't leave. And hiring an AD that understands the modern dynamics of college football.
This whole thing only highlights our problems. We can't complain about UCLA trying to fix theirs by bailing on us. UCLA is leaving because they're $100+ million in the hole. Great. So now the the Pac10 can finalize a media deal and see how much we're really worth. Which isn't going to be a whole lot. And we're crying about it.
Well when we talk about value I sure hope we now look at it within the context of our own house, not anyone else's. Maybe instead of gravy training off the two schools that brought the most value to the media rights deal, we should figure out how we can increase our inherent value. And that means stop extending out contracts to coaches so they won't leave. Not because they want to stay. But so that they won't leave. And hiring an AD that understands the modern dynamics of college football.
"From what I can tell, the regents are more pissed about the lack of planning than they are what is actually happening."
IMO, they are pissed bcos they were blindsided, and embarrassed in front of their donor friends. The lack of proper planning is just an excuse.
IMO, they are pissed bcos they were blindsided, and embarrassed in front of their donor friends. The lack of proper planning is just an excuse.
UC regents give UCLA the A-OK to join Big Ten provided Bruins take mitigation measures involving travel and other athlete well-being issues.
— Ben Bolch (@latbbolch) December 14, 2022
I linked the article that has all the information on UCLA's spreadsheets. Most of the information was there already. I couldn't find the UCLA spreadsheets in my quick search (though the numbers in that article were backed up in other articles). I'm more interested in Cal and I have looked at these things on a regular basis. Here is the link:You've obviously done the analysis. Link your spreadsheets.BearlyCareAnymore said:This is simply not true. Cal spent at least $45M in discretionary spending in the last 2 years - straight up checks paid from the campus to athletics and called "revenue" on the books and that is just what was paid out of the general fund. That is in addition to the $40M in debt service. ($18M attributed to athletics, $22M to general fund)WalterSobchak said:This is just ridiculous. The Ucla deficit is discretionary spending. The Cal deficit is primarily debt service on campus infrastructure. CMS isn't going anywhere. It's a National Historic Register building. If it's there, it has to be used for something. If it has to be occupied by people it has to be safe. If it's going to be used it might as well be used for its intended purpose. Ucla doesn't have to spend millions per year on gourmet catered food. Cal had no choice but to retrofit CMS.BearlyCareAnymore said:
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)
Cal didn't need to spend $300M on the stadium. The majority of that was above and beyond the retrofit.
But regardless, they both have to play somewhere. Cal pays for the stadium debt, over half of which was discretionary. UCLA has to pay Pasadena. I think it is fair to count those the same. UCLA renovated Pauley for $136M and has its own debt service. It badly needed it. (I'm sure they did it up better than they had to, but they didn't attach a whole new training facility to the project). And UCLA athletics is both responsible for the debt and also has to pay the campus for the use of the facility. Cal athletics is paying nothing for Haas. UCLA can make the same argument for Pauley that you are making for CMS.
When you break down the numbers, UCLA's and Cal's spending is pretty close to the same both in amount and in the breakdown. The difference is UCLA is not cooking the books by giving athletics a bunch of money and calling it revenue on its balance sheet.
The expenses of the two departments are pretty similar. It is the revenue that is different and that is because Cal is frankly fudging that. You can't possibly believe that Cal athletics brought in twice what UCLA athletics brought in.
https://calbears.com/documents/2022/1/25/FY21_Audit_detail.pdf
The UC Regents chair and UCOP president are recommending letting UCLA move to the Big Ten and revisiting the issue once the Pac-12 has a media deal, with possible 2-5 million subsidy for Calhttps://t.co/I2pdtEObjM pic.twitter.com/WrvdE49ZeQ
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) December 15, 2022
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
Update:
Regents are discussing whether they should bump the ceiling for the subsidy to $10 million https://t.co/0590vknUNX
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) December 15, 2022
Breaking: UC Regents agree to let UCLA go with a possible $2-5 million subsidy once new media deal is finalized. Money is to go to student/athlete support programs.
Less subsidy/tax than I thought but completely in line with what I thought and said would happen.
Less subsidy/tax than I thought but completely in line with what I thought and said would happen.
Just wanted to mention that stadium project seemed to make a lot of sense at the time. Cal football and basketball were on the upswing under Jeff Tedford and Ben Braun respectively. As I remember, there was an academic component involving the expansion of the Haas business school and (I think) the law school. But the financing did not work out, and so here we are.
One time payment, or ongoing?
Thankssycasey said:Used to be OaktownBear.WalterSobchak said:
When did you change your user name and what was your old one?
Sounds ongoing but TBDmovielover said:
One time payment, or ongoing?
Take care of your Chicken
Not clear but I would think its a one-time subsidy.
All this hand wringing over a dying conference that has no where to look but in the mirror.
At least UCLA and SC were proactive. Cal just lays there like a Baby Ruth in a swimming pool as their unsustainable IAD is destroying the only two revenue sports that could make a financial difference.
60 years of neglect will have it's day of reckoning soon.
I believe this is in response to raising the ceiling for payments to Cal to $10M
approved
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) December 15, 2022
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