Agreed about the difficulty. I just mentioned it because it was suggested by a couple of national sports reporters, independently.Unit2Sucks said:UCLA administrators would love that, assuming a deal could be worked out for the 400+ acre campus. Far more likely that the regents fire a bunch of administrators and install loyalists. It's not that different from the british royals who wanted to walk away (and maybe initially wanted to keep some of dat royal money). I don't want to have Okaydo blast this thread with royal talk but my main point is that just like in that situation, the idea of UCLA going private just isn't that simple.Rushinbear said:Nah. It was that UCLA should be kicked out of UC and left to be their own private. Venting.Cal_79 said:berserkeley said:If UCLA decided the Big Ten was more important than its affiliation with the UC system, then its admins need to be deported from the state. Last I checked, $450 million/yr > $100 million/yr. It would be the dumbest move in the history of dumb moves.BearSD said:
Maybe the solution is
-- UCLA leaves the UC system at the same time it leaves the Pac, rebrands as "University of Los Angeles", and receives no public money at all from that point forward
-- Annual funding from the state that would otherwise have been given to the former UCLA as a member of the UC system goes to pay off all CMS and Simpson Center debt, and after that debt is retired, the annual funding is re-allocated among all campuses of the UC system.
What's the source of the ridiculous assertion that ucla wants to divorce itself from the UC system?
Rushinbear said:Agreed about the difficulty. I just mentioned it because it was suggested by a couple of national sports reporters, independently.Unit2Sucks said:UCLA administrators would love that, assuming a deal could be worked out for the 400+ acre campus. Far more likely that the regents fire a bunch of administrators and install loyalists. It's not that different from the british royals who wanted to walk away (and maybe initially wanted to keep some of dat royal money). I don't want to have Okaydo blast this thread with royal talk but my main point is that just like in that situation, the idea of UCLA going private just isn't that simple.Rushinbear said:Nah. It was that UCLA should be kicked out of UC and left to be their own private. Venting.Cal_79 said:berserkeley said:If UCLA decided the Big Ten was more important than its affiliation with the UC system, then its admins need to be deported from the state. Last I checked, $450 million/yr > $100 million/yr. It would be the dumbest move in the history of dumb moves.BearSD said:
Maybe the solution is
-- UCLA leaves the UC system at the same time it leaves the Pac, rebrands as "University of Los Angeles", and receives no public money at all from that point forward
-- Annual funding from the state that would otherwise have been given to the former UCLA as a member of the UC system goes to pay off all CMS and Simpson Center debt, and after that debt is retired, the annual funding is re-allocated among all campuses of the UC system.
What's the source of the ridiculous assertion that ucla wants to divorce itself from the UC system?
Could UCLA be forced to renege? Possibly, at great cost. Split tv revenue? More likely. Regents throw up their hands? Most likely - we get screwed.
Could the regents fire people? I suppose. Kelly, Jarmond (?) and Drake (?) all should be fired. They can't be trusted. What will they do secretly next? If there are no consequences this time (and "don't do that again or you'll be fired" isn't one), there won't be again. Does it turn out that one or more regents turn out to have known after all, they should be shown the door. You can't have saboteurs on the board.
If this kind of perfidy is allowed to go unpunished, you might as well break up UC and reconstitute the whole business.
Should be bringing them to their knees by withholding everything he can think of, knowing he's not gonna get everything, but willing to take more than if he was "fair." Sorta like the unions negotiate.philbert said:
it's been stated in the LA Times article that Newsom recently "fought to provide $500 million to UCLA for a new immunology center." I could see him saying we'll move the center somewhere else now. He has tools that don't affect the school's budget directly.
calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
That's the zeitgeist now.Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
UCLA has driven itself bankrupt (I consider $100 mill to be that) and they're being let off? In any way?sketchy9 said:That's the zeitgeist now.Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
BTW the latest is that it's not just Newsom but the whole Board of Regents:
UC regents order review of UCLA's Pac-12 exit - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
Cal is going to walk away from $500M in stadium debt and you think UCLA has a $100M problem that the community, candidates and recruits should know about? I'm all for rose-colored glasses here but I'm not sure that passes the sniff test. UCLA is doing something about its finance problem, we are not.Rushinbear said:UCLA has driven itself bankrupt (I consider $100 mill to be that) and they're being let off? In any way?sketchy9 said:That's the zeitgeist now.Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
BTW the latest is that it's not just Newsom but the whole Board of Regents:
UC regents order review of UCLA's Pac-12 exit - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
Does the community know that? The parents? The candidates and recruits? (The students I doubt care - they figure that the State will somehow bail them out. Isn't that what States are for?). Taxpayers?
And, it's not just about the $100 mill. It's about how they got there and how they're going to change course, once they come out of this - there won't be another tv deal to rescue them).
Their solution? get the money from everyone else...without changing their own behavior. Fitting, I suppose.
Unit2Sucks said:Cal is going to walk away from $500M in stadium debt and you think UCLA has a $100M problem that the community, candidates and recruits should know about? I'm all for rose-colored glasses here but I'm not sure that passes the sniff test. UCLA is doing something about its finance problem, we are not.Rushinbear said:UCLA has driven itself bankrupt (I consider $100 mill to be that) and they're being let off? In any way?sketchy9 said:That's the zeitgeist now.Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
BTW the latest is that it's not just Newsom but the whole Board of Regents:
UC regents order review of UCLA's Pac-12 exit - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
Does the community know that? The parents? The candidates and recruits? (The students I doubt care - they figure that the State will somehow bail them out. Isn't that what States are for?). Taxpayers?
And, it's not just about the $100 mill. It's about how they got there and how they're going to change course, once they come out of this - there won't be another tv deal to rescue them).
Their solution? get the money from everyone else...without changing their own behavior. Fitting, I suppose.
We needed a deus ex machina to save us from our stadium debt. It never came. UCLA ditching the Pac-12 just accelerated the timeline by a bit but it's not the cause of our financial problems. So yes, UCLA is hurting our financial position and causing us additional harm but that's not the reason we are underwater on stadium debt.juarezbear said:Unit2Sucks said:Cal is going to walk away from $500M in stadium debt and you think UCLA has a $100M problem that the community, candidates and recruits should know about? I'm all for rose-colored glasses here but I'm not sure that passes the sniff test. UCLA is doing something about its finance problem, we are not.Rushinbear said:UCLA has driven itself bankrupt (I consider $100 mill to be that) and they're being let off? In any way?sketchy9 said:That's the zeitgeist now.Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
BTW the latest is that it's not just Newsom but the whole Board of Regents:
UC regents order review of UCLA's Pac-12 exit - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
Does the community know that? The parents? The candidates and recruits? (The students I doubt care - they figure that the State will somehow bail them out. Isn't that what States are for?). Taxpayers?
And, it's not just about the $100 mill. It's about how they got there and how they're going to change course, once they come out of this - there won't be another tv deal to rescue them).
Their solution? get the money from everyone else...without changing their own behavior. Fitting, I suppose.
The difference is UCLA's actions have a direct impact on Cal. It's not a case of us doing nothing.
calumnus said:Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
The main "harm" is that we no longer get to share in their greater TV value.
If you have been giving your adult brother cash every year, then decide you are not going to do that anymore, he might be upset, he might feel he has been harmed because he is used to it and depends on it, but most would say you have not harmed him and are entirely in your rights.
MrGPAC said:calumnus said:Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
The main "harm" is that we no longer get to share in their greater TV value.
If you have been giving your adult brother cash every year, then decide you are not going to do that anymore, he might be upset, he might feel he has been harmed because he is used to it and depends on it, but most would say you have not harmed him and are entirely in your rights.
A better analogy would be you and your brother started a company together. Its a small company (12 employees), and its looking to land a big contract that will increase profits for everyone.
But your brothers friend, who is one of those 12 employees, gets an invite to go work at a bigger company that pays much better. They really want your brothers friend, but he will only go if he gets to take your brother with him. Your brother and his friend ditch the company together for the higher payday leaving the future of your entire company in doubt.
The big contract is all but assured to be gone, other employees at the company are looking for other options, and what looked like a safe job is now up in the air and its unclear you will get good employment again, or if you do, if it will be nearly as profitable as what you have now.
The regents are like the parents who just invested a ton of money into the business a few years back, and if the company folds they'll be stuck with some significant losses.
Sure, everyone is proud of the brother for riding his friends coattails to a bigger payday...but you and your parents were left in a bad position as a result. Thanksgiving dinner is going to be awkward. Mom definitely wants answers about how all this went down without being involved in the decision *at all*. Dad apparently heard about it and thought it was fine without thinking through all the consequences, and didn't tell you or your mom.
It's when you leave the family, leaving your older brother to care for your invalid father.calumnus said:Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
The main "harm" is that we no longer get to share in their greater TV value.
If you have been giving your adult brother cash every year, then decide you are not going to do that anymore, he might be upset, he might feel he has been harmed because he is used to it and depends on it, but most would say you have not harmed him and are entirely in your rights.
The younger brother spends like a drunken sailor, gets a windfall to recover, but what is he doing about changing his ways, so he doesn't run up the debt again?Unit2Sucks said:Cal is going to walk away from $500M in stadium debt and you think UCLA has a $100M problem that the community, candidates and recruits should know about? I'm all for rose-colored glasses here but I'm not sure that passes the sniff test. UCLA is doing something about its finance problem, we are not.Rushinbear said:UCLA has driven itself bankrupt (I consider $100 mill to be that) and they're being let off? In any way?sketchy9 said:That's the zeitgeist now.Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
BTW the latest is that it's not just Newsom but the whole Board of Regents:
UC regents order review of UCLA's Pac-12 exit - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
Does the community know that? The parents? The candidates and recruits? (The students I doubt care - they figure that the State will somehow bail them out. Isn't that what States are for?). Taxpayers?
And, it's not just about the $100 mill. It's about how they got there and how they're going to change course, once they come out of this - there won't be another tv deal to rescue them).
Their solution? get the money from everyone else...without changing their own behavior. Fitting, I suppose.
Rushinbear said:The younger brother spends like a drunken sailor, gets a windfall to recover, but what is he doing about changing his ways, so he doesn't run up the debt again?Unit2Sucks said:Cal is going to walk away from $500M in stadium debt and you think UCLA has a $100M problem that the community, candidates and recruits should know about? I'm all for rose-colored glasses here but I'm not sure that passes the sniff test. UCLA is doing something about its finance problem, we are not.Rushinbear said:UCLA has driven itself bankrupt (I consider $100 mill to be that) and they're being let off? In any way?sketchy9 said:That's the zeitgeist now.Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
BTW the latest is that it's not just Newsom but the whole Board of Regents:
UC regents order review of UCLA's Pac-12 exit - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
Does the community know that? The parents? The candidates and recruits? (The students I doubt care - they figure that the State will somehow bail them out. Isn't that what States are for?). Taxpayers?
And, it's not just about the $100 mill. It's about how they got there and how they're going to change course, once they come out of this - there won't be another tv deal to rescue them).
Their solution? get the money from everyone else...without changing their own behavior. Fitting, I suppose.
What I meant was that the rev to UCLA with that deal would only cover the current spending. Unless someone sits on them, their RATE of spending increases with no limit. Just like admin and faculty salaries increased exponentially when the government offered virtually unlimited borrowing to every hs grad. The universities said "We'll increase everything by that amount, thank you very much. We know that you still have your own funds or work income that we continue to expect you to pay." The nature of subsidies in a free market.calumnus said:Rushinbear said:The younger brother spends like a drunken sailor, gets a windfall to recover, but what is he doing about changing his ways, so he doesn't run up the debt again?Unit2Sucks said:Cal is going to walk away from $500M in stadium debt and you think UCLA has a $100M problem that the community, candidates and recruits should know about? I'm all for rose-colored glasses here but I'm not sure that passes the sniff test. UCLA is doing something about its finance problem, we are not.Rushinbear said:UCLA has driven itself bankrupt (I consider $100 mill to be that) and they're being let off? In any way?sketchy9 said:That's the zeitgeist now.Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
BTW the latest is that it's not just Newsom but the whole Board of Regents:
UC regents order review of UCLA's Pac-12 exit - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
Does the community know that? The parents? The candidates and recruits? (The students I doubt care - they figure that the State will somehow bail them out. Isn't that what States are for?). Taxpayers?
And, it's not just about the $100 mill. It's about how they got there and how they're going to change course, once they come out of this - there won't be another tv deal to rescue them).
Their solution? get the money from everyone else...without changing their own behavior. Fitting, I suppose.
A windfall is a one-time receipt of income. UCLA will be receiving $100 million annually.
You are missing the main point in this silly analogy. The brother by screwing over the company he just left, leaves his parents with a huge debt and rather than take that debt equally out of every child's inheritance, the parents decide to take the debt only out of brother's inheritance.calumnus said:MrGPAC said:calumnus said:Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
The main "harm" is that we no longer get to share in their greater TV value.
If you have been giving your adult brother cash every year, then decide you are not going to do that anymore, he might be upset, he might feel he has been harmed because he is used to it and depends on it, but most would say you have not harmed him and are entirely in your rights.
A better analogy would be you and your brother started a company together. Its a small company (12 employees), and its looking to land a big contract that will increase profits for everyone.
But your brothers friend, who is one of those 12 employees, gets an invite to go work at a bigger company that pays much better. They really want your brothers friend, but he will only go if he gets to take your brother with him. Your brother and his friend ditch the company together for the higher payday leaving the future of your entire company in doubt.
The big contract is all but assured to be gone, other employees at the company are looking for other options, and what looked like a safe job is now up in the air and its unclear you will get good employment again, or if you do, if it will be nearly as profitable as what you have now.
The regents are like the parents who just invested a ton of money into the business a few years back, and if the company folds they'll be stuck with some significant losses.
Sure, everyone is proud of the brother for riding his friends coattails to a bigger payday...but you and your parents were left in a bad position as a result. Thanksgiving dinner is going to be awkward. Mom definitely wants answers about how all this went down without being involved in the decision *at all*. Dad apparently heard about it and thought it was fine without thinking through all the consequences, and didn't tell you or your mom.
Close, except the parents paid for your education, but they expect your business to be profitable without their having to subsidize it. Your brother and his friend realize they can make a lot more money if they join another firm where everyone brings in revenues like they do, instead of their having to subsidize you and the other weak performers in your current firm.
And while their negotiations have been secret, once they had an offer they gave you and the others in the old firm two years' notice before they would leave.
The biggest issue is that the firm they are joining wants to be one of only two left in the market. You feel that by poaching your brother and his friend, they ultimately want to eliminate competition from your firm. And you feel your brother is now complicit in that. Your brother maybe knows this is true, but feels like that would have happened whether or not they joined the new firm, so better to join the new firm.
In another analogy, they could have continued to hold our hand as we sank, dragging them down with us, or they can let go and swim for the passing ship. Our best hope is not dragging them back, it is convincing them to have the ship's captain come back and pick us up too, hopefully before we drown.
UCLA found a solution to their financial woes. Why wasn't Cal working to do the same? Why didn't Crist and Knowlton work to secure Cal a place in the B1G? If you're angry, I'd direct your ire at those who have left Cal in this desperate position.berserkeley said:You are missing the main point in this silly analogy. The brother by screwing over the company he just left, leaves his parents with a huge debt and rather than take that debt equally out of every child's inheritance, the parents decide to take the debt only out of brother's inheritance.calumnus said:MrGPAC said:calumnus said:Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
The main "harm" is that we no longer get to share in their greater TV value.
If you have been giving your adult brother cash every year, then decide you are not going to do that anymore, he might be upset, he might feel he has been harmed because he is used to it and depends on it, but most would say you have not harmed him and are entirely in your rights.
A better analogy would be you and your brother started a company together. Its a small company (12 employees), and its looking to land a big contract that will increase profits for everyone.
But your brothers friend, who is one of those 12 employees, gets an invite to go work at a bigger company that pays much better. They really want your brothers friend, but he will only go if he gets to take your brother with him. Your brother and his friend ditch the company together for the higher payday leaving the future of your entire company in doubt.
The big contract is all but assured to be gone, other employees at the company are looking for other options, and what looked like a safe job is now up in the air and its unclear you will get good employment again, or if you do, if it will be nearly as profitable as what you have now.
The regents are like the parents who just invested a ton of money into the business a few years back, and if the company folds they'll be stuck with some significant losses.
Sure, everyone is proud of the brother for riding his friends coattails to a bigger payday...but you and your parents were left in a bad position as a result. Thanksgiving dinner is going to be awkward. Mom definitely wants answers about how all this went down without being involved in the decision *at all*. Dad apparently heard about it and thought it was fine without thinking through all the consequences, and didn't tell you or your mom.
Close, except the parents paid for your education, but they expect your business to be profitable without their having to subsidize it. Your brother and his friend realize they can make a lot more money if they join another firm where everyone brings in revenues like they do, instead of their having to subsidize you and the other weak performers in your current firm.
And while their negotiations have been secret, once they had an offer they gave you and the others in the old firm two years' notice before they would leave.
The biggest issue is that the firm they are joining wants to be one of only two left in the market. You feel that by poaching your brother and his friend, they ultimately want to eliminate competition from your firm. And you feel your brother is now complicit in that. Your brother maybe knows this is true, but feels like that would have happened whether or not they joined the new firm, so better to join the new firm.
In another analogy, they could have continued to hold our hand as we sank, dragging them down with us, or they can let go and swim for the passing ship. Our best hope is not dragging them back, it is convincing them to have the ship's captain come back and pick us up too, hopefully before we drown.
Should UCLA be forced to subsidize Cal athletics with their new found money? No. Should UCLA subsidize any debt that Cal would no longer be able to pay because of UCLA's departure? Yes. Because why should Davis, Santa Barbara, and Irvine be forced to equally share in this debt when they aren't at all responsible for it?
Further, you act like UCLA has been paying Cal all this time. False. LA residents have been paying Cal. I live in LA, but I am a Cal fan. But because I'm in LA, the B1G and not the Pac-12 will start profiting off of me even though I have no interest in any of the B1G teams. The UC system is a state wide body, that serves the entire state, and LA is part of that state. Saying that UCLA has been paying Cal because UCLA gets money from being in LA is absurd given that half of Cal students come from LA. LA is as much Cal's market as it is UCLA's, but TV stations don't pay out that way. UCLA is actually stealing money from Cal, not the other way around. And this do so by cutting off access to TV revenue in LA that they rightfully should be sharing in.
Because secret, self-serving negotiations that undercut the UC system by virtue of leaving it are bad.BigDaddy said:UCLA found a solution to their financial woes. Why wasn't Cal working to do the same? Why didn't Crist and Knowlton work to secure Cal a place in the B1G? If you're angry, I'd direct your ire at those who have left Cal in this desperate position.berserkeley said:You are missing the main point in this silly analogy. The brother by screwing over the company he just left, leaves his parents with a huge debt and rather than take that debt equally out of every child's inheritance, the parents decide to take the debt only out of brother's inheritance.calumnus said:MrGPAC said:calumnus said:Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
The main "harm" is that we no longer get to share in their greater TV value.
If you have been giving your adult brother cash every year, then decide you are not going to do that anymore, he might be upset, he might feel he has been harmed because he is used to it and depends on it, but most would say you have not harmed him and are entirely in your rights.
A better analogy would be you and your brother started a company together. Its a small company (12 employees), and its looking to land a big contract that will increase profits for everyone.
But your brothers friend, who is one of those 12 employees, gets an invite to go work at a bigger company that pays much better. They really want your brothers friend, but he will only go if he gets to take your brother with him. Your brother and his friend ditch the company together for the higher payday leaving the future of your entire company in doubt.
The big contract is all but assured to be gone, other employees at the company are looking for other options, and what looked like a safe job is now up in the air and its unclear you will get good employment again, or if you do, if it will be nearly as profitable as what you have now.
The regents are like the parents who just invested a ton of money into the business a few years back, and if the company folds they'll be stuck with some significant losses.
Sure, everyone is proud of the brother for riding his friends coattails to a bigger payday...but you and your parents were left in a bad position as a result. Thanksgiving dinner is going to be awkward. Mom definitely wants answers about how all this went down without being involved in the decision *at all*. Dad apparently heard about it and thought it was fine without thinking through all the consequences, and didn't tell you or your mom.
Close, except the parents paid for your education, but they expect your business to be profitable without their having to subsidize it. Your brother and his friend realize they can make a lot more money if they join another firm where everyone brings in revenues like they do, instead of their having to subsidize you and the other weak performers in your current firm.
And while their negotiations have been secret, once they had an offer they gave you and the others in the old firm two years' notice before they would leave.
The biggest issue is that the firm they are joining wants to be one of only two left in the market. You feel that by poaching your brother and his friend, they ultimately want to eliminate competition from your firm. And you feel your brother is now complicit in that. Your brother maybe knows this is true, but feels like that would have happened whether or not they joined the new firm, so better to join the new firm.
In another analogy, they could have continued to hold our hand as we sank, dragging them down with us, or they can let go and swim for the passing ship. Our best hope is not dragging them back, it is convincing them to have the ship's captain come back and pick us up too, hopefully before we drown.
Should UCLA be forced to subsidize Cal athletics with their new found money? No. Should UCLA subsidize any debt that Cal would no longer be able to pay because of UCLA's departure? Yes. Because why should Davis, Santa Barbara, and Irvine be forced to equally share in this debt when they aren't at all responsible for it?
Further, you act like UCLA has been paying Cal all this time. False. LA residents have been paying Cal. I live in LA, but I am a Cal fan. But because I'm in LA, the B1G and not the Pac-12 will start profiting off of me even though I have no interest in any of the B1G teams. The UC system is a state wide body, that serves the entire state, and LA is part of that state. Saying that UCLA has been paying Cal because UCLA gets money from being in LA is absurd given that half of Cal students come from LA. LA is as much Cal's market as it is UCLA's, but TV stations don't pay out that way. UCLA is actually stealing money from Cal, not the other way around. And this do so by cutting off access to TV revenue in LA that they rightfully should be sharing in.
BigDaddy said:UCLA found a solution to their financial woes. Why wasn't Cal working to do the same? Why didn't Crist and Knowlton work to secure Cal a place in the B1G? If you're angry, I'd direct your ire at those who have left Cal in this desperate position.berserkeley said:You are missing the main point in this silly analogy. The brother by screwing over the company he just left, leaves his parents with a huge debt and rather than take that debt equally out of every child's inheritance, the parents decide to take the debt only out of brother's inheritance.calumnus said:MrGPAC said:calumnus said:Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
The main "harm" is that we no longer get to share in their greater TV value.
If you have been giving your adult brother cash every year, then decide you are not going to do that anymore, he might be upset, he might feel he has been harmed because he is used to it and depends on it, but most would say you have not harmed him and are entirely in your rights.
A better analogy would be you and your brother started a company together. Its a small company (12 employees), and its looking to land a big contract that will increase profits for everyone.
But your brothers friend, who is one of those 12 employees, gets an invite to go work at a bigger company that pays much better. They really want your brothers friend, but he will only go if he gets to take your brother with him. Your brother and his friend ditch the company together for the higher payday leaving the future of your entire company in doubt.
The big contract is all but assured to be gone, other employees at the company are looking for other options, and what looked like a safe job is now up in the air and its unclear you will get good employment again, or if you do, if it will be nearly as profitable as what you have now.
The regents are like the parents who just invested a ton of money into the business a few years back, and if the company folds they'll be stuck with some significant losses.
Sure, everyone is proud of the brother for riding his friends coattails to a bigger payday...but you and your parents were left in a bad position as a result. Thanksgiving dinner is going to be awkward. Mom definitely wants answers about how all this went down without being involved in the decision *at all*. Dad apparently heard about it and thought it was fine without thinking through all the consequences, and didn't tell you or your mom.
Close, except the parents paid for your education, but they expect your business to be profitable without their having to subsidize it. Your brother and his friend realize they can make a lot more money if they join another firm where everyone brings in revenues like they do, instead of their having to subsidize you and the other weak performers in your current firm.
And while their negotiations have been secret, once they had an offer they gave you and the others in the old firm two years' notice before they would leave.
The biggest issue is that the firm they are joining wants to be one of only two left in the market. You feel that by poaching your brother and his friend, they ultimately want to eliminate competition from your firm. And you feel your brother is now complicit in that. Your brother maybe knows this is true, but feels like that would have happened whether or not they joined the new firm, so better to join the new firm.
In another analogy, they could have continued to hold our hand as we sank, dragging them down with us, or they can let go and swim for the passing ship. Our best hope is not dragging them back, it is convincing them to have the ship's captain come back and pick us up too, hopefully before we drown.
Should UCLA be forced to subsidize Cal athletics with their new found money? No. Should UCLA subsidize any debt that Cal would no longer be able to pay because of UCLA's departure? Yes. Because why should Davis, Santa Barbara, and Irvine be forced to equally share in this debt when they aren't at all responsible for it?
Further, you act like UCLA has been paying Cal all this time. False. LA residents have been paying Cal. I live in LA, but I am a Cal fan. But because I'm in LA, the B1G and not the Pac-12 will start profiting off of me even though I have no interest in any of the B1G teams. The UC system is a state wide body, that serves the entire state, and LA is part of that state. Saying that UCLA has been paying Cal because UCLA gets money from being in LA is absurd given that half of Cal students come from LA. LA is as much Cal's market as it is UCLA's, but TV stations don't pay out that way. UCLA is actually stealing money from Cal, not the other way around. And this do so by cutting off access to TV revenue in LA that they rightfully should be sharing in.
Again, what were Crist and Knowlton (or their predecessors) doing all this time to solve Cal's financial issues? Why haven't they reached out to the B1G seeking league membership?Rushinbear said:Because secret, self-serving negotiations that undercut the UC system by virtue of leaving it are bad.BigDaddy said:UCLA found a solution to their financial woes. Why wasn't Cal working to do the same? Why didn't Crist and Knowlton work to secure Cal a place in the B1G? If you're angry, I'd direct your ire at those who have left Cal in this desperate position.berserkeley said:You are missing the main point in this silly analogy. The brother by screwing over the company he just left, leaves his parents with a huge debt and rather than take that debt equally out of every child's inheritance, the parents decide to take the debt only out of brother's inheritance.calumnus said:MrGPAC said:calumnus said:Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
The main "harm" is that we no longer get to share in their greater TV value.
If you have been giving your adult brother cash every year, then decide you are not going to do that anymore, he might be upset, he might feel he has been harmed because he is used to it and depends on it, but most would say you have not harmed him and are entirely in your rights.
A better analogy would be you and your brother started a company together. Its a small company (12 employees), and its looking to land a big contract that will increase profits for everyone.
But your brothers friend, who is one of those 12 employees, gets an invite to go work at a bigger company that pays much better. They really want your brothers friend, but he will only go if he gets to take your brother with him. Your brother and his friend ditch the company together for the higher payday leaving the future of your entire company in doubt.
The big contract is all but assured to be gone, other employees at the company are looking for other options, and what looked like a safe job is now up in the air and its unclear you will get good employment again, or if you do, if it will be nearly as profitable as what you have now.
The regents are like the parents who just invested a ton of money into the business a few years back, and if the company folds they'll be stuck with some significant losses.
Sure, everyone is proud of the brother for riding his friends coattails to a bigger payday...but you and your parents were left in a bad position as a result. Thanksgiving dinner is going to be awkward. Mom definitely wants answers about how all this went down without being involved in the decision *at all*. Dad apparently heard about it and thought it was fine without thinking through all the consequences, and didn't tell you or your mom.
Close, except the parents paid for your education, but they expect your business to be profitable without their having to subsidize it. Your brother and his friend realize they can make a lot more money if they join another firm where everyone brings in revenues like they do, instead of their having to subsidize you and the other weak performers in your current firm.
And while their negotiations have been secret, once they had an offer they gave you and the others in the old firm two years' notice before they would leave.
The biggest issue is that the firm they are joining wants to be one of only two left in the market. You feel that by poaching your brother and his friend, they ultimately want to eliminate competition from your firm. And you feel your brother is now complicit in that. Your brother maybe knows this is true, but feels like that would have happened whether or not they joined the new firm, so better to join the new firm.
In another analogy, they could have continued to hold our hand as we sank, dragging them down with us, or they can let go and swim for the passing ship. Our best hope is not dragging them back, it is convincing them to have the ship's captain come back and pick us up too, hopefully before we drown.
Should UCLA be forced to subsidize Cal athletics with their new found money? No. Should UCLA subsidize any debt that Cal would no longer be able to pay because of UCLA's departure? Yes. Because why should Davis, Santa Barbara, and Irvine be forced to equally share in this debt when they aren't at all responsible for it?
Further, you act like UCLA has been paying Cal all this time. False. LA residents have been paying Cal. I live in LA, but I am a Cal fan. But because I'm in LA, the B1G and not the Pac-12 will start profiting off of me even though I have no interest in any of the B1G teams. The UC system is a state wide body, that serves the entire state, and LA is part of that state. Saying that UCLA has been paying Cal because UCLA gets money from being in LA is absurd given that half of Cal students come from LA. LA is as much Cal's market as it is UCLA's, but TV stations don't pay out that way. UCLA is actually stealing money from Cal, not the other way around. And this do so by cutting off access to TV revenue in LA that they rightfully should be sharing in.
BigDaddy said:Again, what were Crist and Knowlton (or their predecessors) doing all this time to solve Cal's financial issues? Why haven't they reached out to the B1G seeking league membership?Rushinbear said:Because secret, self-serving negotiations that undercut the UC system by virtue of leaving it are bad.BigDaddy said:UCLA found a solution to their financial woes. Why wasn't Cal working to do the same? Why didn't Crist and Knowlton work to secure Cal a place in the B1G? If you're angry, I'd direct your ire at those who have left Cal in this desperate position.berserkeley said:You are missing the main point in this silly analogy. The brother by screwing over the company he just left, leaves his parents with a huge debt and rather than take that debt equally out of every child's inheritance, the parents decide to take the debt only out of brother's inheritance.calumnus said:MrGPAC said:calumnus said:Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
The main "harm" is that we no longer get to share in their greater TV value.
If you have been giving your adult brother cash every year, then decide you are not going to do that anymore, he might be upset, he might feel he has been harmed because he is used to it and depends on it, but most would say you have not harmed him and are entirely in your rights.
A better analogy would be you and your brother started a company together. Its a small company (12 employees), and its looking to land a big contract that will increase profits for everyone.
But your brothers friend, who is one of those 12 employees, gets an invite to go work at a bigger company that pays much better. They really want your brothers friend, but he will only go if he gets to take your brother with him. Your brother and his friend ditch the company together for the higher payday leaving the future of your entire company in doubt.
The big contract is all but assured to be gone, other employees at the company are looking for other options, and what looked like a safe job is now up in the air and its unclear you will get good employment again, or if you do, if it will be nearly as profitable as what you have now.
The regents are like the parents who just invested a ton of money into the business a few years back, and if the company folds they'll be stuck with some significant losses.
Sure, everyone is proud of the brother for riding his friends coattails to a bigger payday...but you and your parents were left in a bad position as a result. Thanksgiving dinner is going to be awkward. Mom definitely wants answers about how all this went down without being involved in the decision *at all*. Dad apparently heard about it and thought it was fine without thinking through all the consequences, and didn't tell you or your mom.
Close, except the parents paid for your education, but they expect your business to be profitable without their having to subsidize it. Your brother and his friend realize they can make a lot more money if they join another firm where everyone brings in revenues like they do, instead of their having to subsidize you and the other weak performers in your current firm.
And while their negotiations have been secret, once they had an offer they gave you and the others in the old firm two years' notice before they would leave.
The biggest issue is that the firm they are joining wants to be one of only two left in the market. You feel that by poaching your brother and his friend, they ultimately want to eliminate competition from your firm. And you feel your brother is now complicit in that. Your brother maybe knows this is true, but feels like that would have happened whether or not they joined the new firm, so better to join the new firm.
In another analogy, they could have continued to hold our hand as we sank, dragging them down with us, or they can let go and swim for the passing ship. Our best hope is not dragging them back, it is convincing them to have the ship's captain come back and pick us up too, hopefully before we drown.
Should UCLA be forced to subsidize Cal athletics with their new found money? No. Should UCLA subsidize any debt that Cal would no longer be able to pay because of UCLA's departure? Yes. Because why should Davis, Santa Barbara, and Irvine be forced to equally share in this debt when they aren't at all responsible for it?
Further, you act like UCLA has been paying Cal all this time. False. LA residents have been paying Cal. I live in LA, but I am a Cal fan. But because I'm in LA, the B1G and not the Pac-12 will start profiting off of me even though I have no interest in any of the B1G teams. The UC system is a state wide body, that serves the entire state, and LA is part of that state. Saying that UCLA has been paying Cal because UCLA gets money from being in LA is absurd given that half of Cal students come from LA. LA is as much Cal's market as it is UCLA's, but TV stations don't pay out that way. UCLA is actually stealing money from Cal, not the other way around. And this do so by cutting off access to TV revenue in LA that they rightfully should be sharing in.
How do you know that they haven't/didn't? Cal is most likely at teh bottom of the BiG list of addtitions, so the BiG would just say, 'thanks for your interest, we'll get back to you.'BigDaddy said:Again, what were Crist and Knowlton (or their predecessors) doing all this time to solve Cal's financial issues? Why haven't they reached out to the B1G seeking league membership?Rushinbear said:Because secret, self-serving negotiations that undercut the UC system by virtue of leaving it are bad.BigDaddy said:UCLA found a solution to their financial woes. Why wasn't Cal working to do the same? Why didn't Crist and Knowlton work to secure Cal a place in the B1G? If you're angry, I'd direct your ire at those who have left Cal in this desperate position.berserkeley said:You are missing the main point in this silly analogy. The brother by screwing over the company he just left, leaves his parents with a huge debt and rather than take that debt equally out of every child's inheritance, the parents decide to take the debt only out of brother's inheritance.calumnus said:MrGPAC said:calumnus said:Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
The main "harm" is that we no longer get to share in their greater TV value.
If you have been giving your adult brother cash every year, then decide you are not going to do that anymore, he might be upset, he might feel he has been harmed because he is used to it and depends on it, but most would say you have not harmed him and are entirely in your rights.
A better analogy would be you and your brother started a company together. Its a small company (12 employees), and its looking to land a big contract that will increase profits for everyone.
But your brothers friend, who is one of those 12 employees, gets an invite to go work at a bigger company that pays much better. They really want your brothers friend, but he will only go if he gets to take your brother with him. Your brother and his friend ditch the company together for the higher payday leaving the future of your entire company in doubt.
The big contract is all but assured to be gone, other employees at the company are looking for other options, and what looked like a safe job is now up in the air and its unclear you will get good employment again, or if you do, if it will be nearly as profitable as what you have now.
The regents are like the parents who just invested a ton of money into the business a few years back, and if the company folds they'll be stuck with some significant losses.
Sure, everyone is proud of the brother for riding his friends coattails to a bigger payday...but you and your parents were left in a bad position as a result. Thanksgiving dinner is going to be awkward. Mom definitely wants answers about how all this went down without being involved in the decision *at all*. Dad apparently heard about it and thought it was fine without thinking through all the consequences, and didn't tell you or your mom.
Close, except the parents paid for your education, but they expect your business to be profitable without their having to subsidize it. Your brother and his friend realize they can make a lot more money if they join another firm where everyone brings in revenues like they do, instead of their having to subsidize you and the other weak performers in your current firm.
And while their negotiations have been secret, once they had an offer they gave you and the others in the old firm two years' notice before they would leave.
The biggest issue is that the firm they are joining wants to be one of only two left in the market. You feel that by poaching your brother and his friend, they ultimately want to eliminate competition from your firm. And you feel your brother is now complicit in that. Your brother maybe knows this is true, but feels like that would have happened whether or not they joined the new firm, so better to join the new firm.
In another analogy, they could have continued to hold our hand as we sank, dragging them down with us, or they can let go and swim for the passing ship. Our best hope is not dragging them back, it is convincing them to have the ship's captain come back and pick us up too, hopefully before we drown.
Should UCLA be forced to subsidize Cal athletics with their new found money? No. Should UCLA subsidize any debt that Cal would no longer be able to pay because of UCLA's departure? Yes. Because why should Davis, Santa Barbara, and Irvine be forced to equally share in this debt when they aren't at all responsible for it?
Further, you act like UCLA has been paying Cal all this time. False. LA residents have been paying Cal. I live in LA, but I am a Cal fan. But because I'm in LA, the B1G and not the Pac-12 will start profiting off of me even though I have no interest in any of the B1G teams. The UC system is a state wide body, that serves the entire state, and LA is part of that state. Saying that UCLA has been paying Cal because UCLA gets money from being in LA is absurd given that half of Cal students come from LA. LA is as much Cal's market as it is UCLA's, but TV stations don't pay out that way. UCLA is actually stealing money from Cal, not the other way around. And this do so by cutting off access to TV revenue in LA that they rightfully should be sharing in.
fat_slice said:BigDaddy said:Again, what were Crist and Knowlton (or their predecessors) doing all this time to solve Cal's financial issues? Why haven't they reached out to the B1G seeking league membership?Rushinbear said:Because secret, self-serving negotiations that undercut the UC system by virtue of leaving it are bad.BigDaddy said:
UCLA found a solution to their financial woes. Why wasn't Cal working to do the same? Why didn't Crist and Knowlton work to secure Cal a place in the B1G? If you're angry, I'd direct your ire at those who have left Cal in this desperate position.
Oh I know this one ... The did not and currently are not doing godd%n thing. The most useless "leaders" for the university. I'd be surprised if they are even following this mess. They have already written their draft response (the only work they have done) which reads:
"We analyzed a number of options and and are excited to announce that Cal will be joining the MWC in 2025. We did not take this decision lightly, rather we put most weight on what really matters - the student-athlete experience. We look forward to joining our new partners in the MWC and will continue to persue academic and athletic excellence."
Crap - just realized I probably did more work on this just now than they have.
Oh, I'm sure they finally got around to applying to the B1G at some point after USC and UCLA announced their plans. A day late and $500 million dollars short.Big Dog said:How do you know that they haven't/didn't? Cal is most likely at teh bottom of the BiG list of addtitions, so the BiG would just say, 'thanks for your interest, we'll get back to you.'BigDaddy said:Again, what were Crist and Knowlton (or their predecessors) doing all this time to solve Cal's financial issues? Why haven't they reached out to the B1G seeking league membership?Rushinbear said:Because secret, self-serving negotiations that undercut the UC system by virtue of leaving it are bad.BigDaddy said:UCLA found a solution to their financial woes. Why wasn't Cal working to do the same? Why didn't Crist and Knowlton work to secure Cal a place in the B1G? If you're angry, I'd direct your ire at those who have left Cal in this desperate position.berserkeley said:You are missing the main point in this silly analogy. The brother by screwing over the company he just left, leaves his parents with a huge debt and rather than take that debt equally out of every child's inheritance, the parents decide to take the debt only out of brother's inheritance.calumnus said:MrGPAC said:calumnus said:Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
The main "harm" is that we no longer get to share in their greater TV value.
If you have been giving your adult brother cash every year, then decide you are not going to do that anymore, he might be upset, he might feel he has been harmed because he is used to it and depends on it, but most would say you have not harmed him and are entirely in your rights.
A better analogy would be you and your brother started a company together. Its a small company (12 employees), and its looking to land a big contract that will increase profits for everyone.
But your brothers friend, who is one of those 12 employees, gets an invite to go work at a bigger company that pays much better. They really want your brothers friend, but he will only go if he gets to take your brother with him. Your brother and his friend ditch the company together for the higher payday leaving the future of your entire company in doubt.
The big contract is all but assured to be gone, other employees at the company are looking for other options, and what looked like a safe job is now up in the air and its unclear you will get good employment again, or if you do, if it will be nearly as profitable as what you have now.
The regents are like the parents who just invested a ton of money into the business a few years back, and if the company folds they'll be stuck with some significant losses.
Sure, everyone is proud of the brother for riding his friends coattails to a bigger payday...but you and your parents were left in a bad position as a result. Thanksgiving dinner is going to be awkward. Mom definitely wants answers about how all this went down without being involved in the decision *at all*. Dad apparently heard about it and thought it was fine without thinking through all the consequences, and didn't tell you or your mom.
Close, except the parents paid for your education, but they expect your business to be profitable without their having to subsidize it. Your brother and his friend realize they can make a lot more money if they join another firm where everyone brings in revenues like they do, instead of their having to subsidize you and the other weak performers in your current firm.
And while their negotiations have been secret, once they had an offer they gave you and the others in the old firm two years' notice before they would leave.
The biggest issue is that the firm they are joining wants to be one of only two left in the market. You feel that by poaching your brother and his friend, they ultimately want to eliminate competition from your firm. And you feel your brother is now complicit in that. Your brother maybe knows this is true, but feels like that would have happened whether or not they joined the new firm, so better to join the new firm.
In another analogy, they could have continued to hold our hand as we sank, dragging them down with us, or they can let go and swim for the passing ship. Our best hope is not dragging them back, it is convincing them to have the ship's captain come back and pick us up too, hopefully before we drown.
Should UCLA be forced to subsidize Cal athletics with their new found money? No. Should UCLA subsidize any debt that Cal would no longer be able to pay because of UCLA's departure? Yes. Because why should Davis, Santa Barbara, and Irvine be forced to equally share in this debt when they aren't at all responsible for it?
Further, you act like UCLA has been paying Cal all this time. False. LA residents have been paying Cal. I live in LA, but I am a Cal fan. But because I'm in LA, the B1G and not the Pac-12 will start profiting off of me even though I have no interest in any of the B1G teams. The UC system is a state wide body, that serves the entire state, and LA is part of that state. Saying that UCLA has been paying Cal because UCLA gets money from being in LA is absurd given that half of Cal students come from LA. LA is as much Cal's market as it is UCLA's, but TV stations don't pay out that way. UCLA is actually stealing money from Cal, not the other way around. And this do so by cutting off access to TV revenue in LA that they rightfully should be sharing in.
DiabloWags said:fat_slice said:BigDaddy said:Again, what were Crist and Knowlton (or their predecessors) doing all this time to solve Cal's financial issues? Why haven't they reached out to the B1G seeking league membership?Rushinbear said:Because secret, self-serving negotiations that undercut the UC system by virtue of leaving it are bad.BigDaddy said:
UCLA found a solution to their financial woes. Why wasn't Cal working to do the same? Why didn't Crist and Knowlton work to secure Cal a place in the B1G? If you're angry, I'd direct your ire at those who have left Cal in this desperate position.
Oh I know this one ... The did not and currently are not doing godd%n thing. The most useless "leaders" for the university. I'd be surprised if they are even following this mess. They have already written their draft response (the only work they have done) which reads:
"We analyzed a number of options and and are excited to announce that Cal will be joining the MWC in 2025. We did not take this decision lightly, rather we put most weight on what really matters - the student-athlete experience. We look forward to joining our new partners in the MWC and will continue to persue academic and athletic excellence."
Crap - just realized I probably did more work on this just now than they have.
Yup.
We suffer from mediocre (at best) leadership.
Mike Williams name belongs on this list as well.
His position as Cal AD ran through May 6, 2018
I find it interesting that there are people that want to blame UCLA for our woes and that they run an athletic department that cant pay their bills. That's pretty rich, considering that for YEARS our Chancellors have been writing a check to cover the Cal IAD annual budget deficits.
Chancellor Dirks authorized a check for up to $20 million to close a Cal Athletics shortfall of $16 million just five years ago in 2017. Cal Athletics also received a $22.9 million dollar bailout from the Chancellor's Office in the previous fiscal year to resolve a similar shortfall. That deficit in 2016, was almost TRIPLE the $8.5 million deficit the year before.
'Impossible situation': Cal Athletics gets $20M bailout from chancellor's office (dailycal.org)
Not the point.BigDaddy said:Again, what were Crist and Knowlton (or their predecessors) doing all this time to solve Cal's financial issues? Why haven't they reached out to the B1G seeking league membership?Rushinbear said:Because secret, self-serving negotiations that undercut the UC system by virtue of leaving it are bad.BigDaddy said:UCLA found a solution to their financial woes. Why wasn't Cal working to do the same? Why didn't Crist and Knowlton work to secure Cal a place in the B1G? If you're angry, I'd direct your ire at those who have left Cal in this desperate position.berserkeley said:You are missing the main point in this silly analogy. The brother by screwing over the company he just left, leaves his parents with a huge debt and rather than take that debt equally out of every child's inheritance, the parents decide to take the debt only out of brother's inheritance.calumnus said:MrGPAC said:calumnus said:Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
The main "harm" is that we no longer get to share in their greater TV value.
If you have been giving your adult brother cash every year, then decide you are not going to do that anymore, he might be upset, he might feel he has been harmed because he is used to it and depends on it, but most would say you have not harmed him and are entirely in your rights.
A better analogy would be you and your brother started a company together. Its a small company (12 employees), and its looking to land a big contract that will increase profits for everyone.
But your brothers friend, who is one of those 12 employees, gets an invite to go work at a bigger company that pays much better. They really want your brothers friend, but he will only go if he gets to take your brother with him. Your brother and his friend ditch the company together for the higher payday leaving the future of your entire company in doubt.
The big contract is all but assured to be gone, other employees at the company are looking for other options, and what looked like a safe job is now up in the air and its unclear you will get good employment again, or if you do, if it will be nearly as profitable as what you have now.
The regents are like the parents who just invested a ton of money into the business a few years back, and if the company folds they'll be stuck with some significant losses.
Sure, everyone is proud of the brother for riding his friends coattails to a bigger payday...but you and your parents were left in a bad position as a result. Thanksgiving dinner is going to be awkward. Mom definitely wants answers about how all this went down without being involved in the decision *at all*. Dad apparently heard about it and thought it was fine without thinking through all the consequences, and didn't tell you or your mom.
Close, except the parents paid for your education, but they expect your business to be profitable without their having to subsidize it. Your brother and his friend realize they can make a lot more money if they join another firm where everyone brings in revenues like they do, instead of their having to subsidize you and the other weak performers in your current firm.
And while their negotiations have been secret, once they had an offer they gave you and the others in the old firm two years' notice before they would leave.
The biggest issue is that the firm they are joining wants to be one of only two left in the market. You feel that by poaching your brother and his friend, they ultimately want to eliminate competition from your firm. And you feel your brother is now complicit in that. Your brother maybe knows this is true, but feels like that would have happened whether or not they joined the new firm, so better to join the new firm.
In another analogy, they could have continued to hold our hand as we sank, dragging them down with us, or they can let go and swim for the passing ship. Our best hope is not dragging them back, it is convincing them to have the ship's captain come back and pick us up too, hopefully before we drown.
Should UCLA be forced to subsidize Cal athletics with their new found money? No. Should UCLA subsidize any debt that Cal would no longer be able to pay because of UCLA's departure? Yes. Because why should Davis, Santa Barbara, and Irvine be forced to equally share in this debt when they aren't at all responsible for it?
Further, you act like UCLA has been paying Cal all this time. False. LA residents have been paying Cal. I live in LA, but I am a Cal fan. But because I'm in LA, the B1G and not the Pac-12 will start profiting off of me even though I have no interest in any of the B1G teams. The UC system is a state wide body, that serves the entire state, and LA is part of that state. Saying that UCLA has been paying Cal because UCLA gets money from being in LA is absurd given that half of Cal students come from LA. LA is as much Cal's market as it is UCLA's, but TV stations don't pay out that way. UCLA is actually stealing money from Cal, not the other way around. And this do so by cutting off access to TV revenue in LA that they rightfully should be sharing in.
They may have but who knows....the B1G knows very well that Cal wants in. It's up to the B1G and their timetable. They've announced they're standing pat for now and don't seem to be in a hurry until the ND situation is cleared up. ND is their focus, not Cal or any other Pac 12 school....BigDaddy said:Again, what were Crist and Knowlton (or their predecessors) doing all this time to solve Cal's financial issues? Why haven't they reached out to the B1G seeking league membership?Rushinbear said:Because secret, self-serving negotiations that undercut the UC system by virtue of leaving it are bad.BigDaddy said:UCLA found a solution to their financial woes. Why wasn't Cal working to do the same? Why didn't Crist and Knowlton work to secure Cal a place in the B1G? If you're angry, I'd direct your ire at those who have left Cal in this desperate position.berserkeley said:You are missing the main point in this silly analogy. The brother by screwing over the company he just left, leaves his parents with a huge debt and rather than take that debt equally out of every child's inheritance, the parents decide to take the debt only out of brother's inheritance.calumnus said:MrGPAC said:calumnus said:Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
The main "harm" is that we no longer get to share in their greater TV value.
If you have been giving your adult brother cash every year, then decide you are not going to do that anymore, he might be upset, he might feel he has been harmed because he is used to it and depends on it, but most would say you have not harmed him and are entirely in your rights.
A better analogy would be you and your brother started a company together. Its a small company (12 employees), and its looking to land a big contract that will increase profits for everyone.
But your brothers friend, who is one of those 12 employees, gets an invite to go work at a bigger company that pays much better. They really want your brothers friend, but he will only go if he gets to take your brother with him. Your brother and his friend ditch the company together for the higher payday leaving the future of your entire company in doubt.
The big contract is all but assured to be gone, other employees at the company are looking for other options, and what looked like a safe job is now up in the air and its unclear you will get good employment again, or if you do, if it will be nearly as profitable as what you have now.
The regents are like the parents who just invested a ton of money into the business a few years back, and if the company folds they'll be stuck with some significant losses.
Sure, everyone is proud of the brother for riding his friends coattails to a bigger payday...but you and your parents were left in a bad position as a result. Thanksgiving dinner is going to be awkward. Mom definitely wants answers about how all this went down without being involved in the decision *at all*. Dad apparently heard about it and thought it was fine without thinking through all the consequences, and didn't tell you or your mom.
Close, except the parents paid for your education, but they expect your business to be profitable without their having to subsidize it. Your brother and his friend realize they can make a lot more money if they join another firm where everyone brings in revenues like they do, instead of their having to subsidize you and the other weak performers in your current firm.
And while their negotiations have been secret, once they had an offer they gave you and the others in the old firm two years' notice before they would leave.
The biggest issue is that the firm they are joining wants to be one of only two left in the market. You feel that by poaching your brother and his friend, they ultimately want to eliminate competition from your firm. And you feel your brother is now complicit in that. Your brother maybe knows this is true, but feels like that would have happened whether or not they joined the new firm, so better to join the new firm.
In another analogy, they could have continued to hold our hand as we sank, dragging them down with us, or they can let go and swim for the passing ship. Our best hope is not dragging them back, it is convincing them to have the ship's captain come back and pick us up too, hopefully before we drown.
Should UCLA be forced to subsidize Cal athletics with their new found money? No. Should UCLA subsidize any debt that Cal would no longer be able to pay because of UCLA's departure? Yes. Because why should Davis, Santa Barbara, and Irvine be forced to equally share in this debt when they aren't at all responsible for it?
Further, you act like UCLA has been paying Cal all this time. False. LA residents have been paying Cal. I live in LA, but I am a Cal fan. But because I'm in LA, the B1G and not the Pac-12 will start profiting off of me even though I have no interest in any of the B1G teams. The UC system is a state wide body, that serves the entire state, and LA is part of that state. Saying that UCLA has been paying Cal because UCLA gets money from being in LA is absurd given that half of Cal students come from LA. LA is as much Cal's market as it is UCLA's, but TV stations don't pay out that way. UCLA is actually stealing money from Cal, not the other way around. And this do so by cutting off access to TV revenue in LA that they rightfully should be sharing in.
Once again.....From all accounts, it was either USC or the B1G that initiated this process....UCLA was handed a golden ticket based on their geography so we need to stop ****ting on Christ and Knowlton. I know there's historical PTSD from lack of institutional support, but we certainly can't accuse Oregon or UW of having a non-supportive admin or AD, yet they're in the same boat as us and Furd. USC and UCLA were dishonest, Machiavellian partners who stabbed us all in the back. They were devious *******s and left their family in the ashes....BigDaddy said:Oh, I'm sure they finally got around to applying to the B1G at some point after USC and UCLA announced their plans. A day late and $500 million dollars short.Big Dog said:How do you know that they haven't/didn't? Cal is most likely at teh bottom of the BiG list of addtitions, so the BiG would just say, 'thanks for your interest, we'll get back to you.'BigDaddy said:Again, what were Crist and Knowlton (or their predecessors) doing all this time to solve Cal's financial issues? Why haven't they reached out to the B1G seeking league membership?Rushinbear said:Because secret, self-serving negotiations that undercut the UC system by virtue of leaving it are bad.BigDaddy said:UCLA found a solution to their financial woes. Why wasn't Cal working to do the same? Why didn't Crist and Knowlton work to secure Cal a place in the B1G? If you're angry, I'd direct your ire at those who have left Cal in this desperate position.berserkeley said:You are missing the main point in this silly analogy. The brother by screwing over the company he just left, leaves his parents with a huge debt and rather than take that debt equally out of every child's inheritance, the parents decide to take the debt only out of brother's inheritance.calumnus said:MrGPAC said:calumnus said:Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
The main "harm" is that we no longer get to share in their greater TV value.
If you have been giving your adult brother cash every year, then decide you are not going to do that anymore, he might be upset, he might feel he has been harmed because he is used to it and depends on it, but most would say you have not harmed him and are entirely in your rights.
A better analogy would be you and your brother started a company together. Its a small company (12 employees), and its looking to land a big contract that will increase profits for everyone.
But your brothers friend, who is one of those 12 employees, gets an invite to go work at a bigger company that pays much better. They really want your brothers friend, but he will only go if he gets to take your brother with him. Your brother and his friend ditch the company together for the higher payday leaving the future of your entire company in doubt.
The big contract is all but assured to be gone, other employees at the company are looking for other options, and what looked like a safe job is now up in the air and its unclear you will get good employment again, or if you do, if it will be nearly as profitable as what you have now.
The regents are like the parents who just invested a ton of money into the business a few years back, and if the company folds they'll be stuck with some significant losses.
Sure, everyone is proud of the brother for riding his friends coattails to a bigger payday...but you and your parents were left in a bad position as a result. Thanksgiving dinner is going to be awkward. Mom definitely wants answers about how all this went down without being involved in the decision *at all*. Dad apparently heard about it and thought it was fine without thinking through all the consequences, and didn't tell you or your mom.
Close, except the parents paid for your education, but they expect your business to be profitable without their having to subsidize it. Your brother and his friend realize they can make a lot more money if they join another firm where everyone brings in revenues like they do, instead of their having to subsidize you and the other weak performers in your current firm.
And while their negotiations have been secret, once they had an offer they gave you and the others in the old firm two years' notice before they would leave.
The biggest issue is that the firm they are joining wants to be one of only two left in the market. You feel that by poaching your brother and his friend, they ultimately want to eliminate competition from your firm. And you feel your brother is now complicit in that. Your brother maybe knows this is true, but feels like that would have happened whether or not they joined the new firm, so better to join the new firm.
In another analogy, they could have continued to hold our hand as we sank, dragging them down with us, or they can let go and swim for the passing ship. Our best hope is not dragging them back, it is convincing them to have the ship's captain come back and pick us up too, hopefully before we drown.
Should UCLA be forced to subsidize Cal athletics with their new found money? No. Should UCLA subsidize any debt that Cal would no longer be able to pay because of UCLA's departure? Yes. Because why should Davis, Santa Barbara, and Irvine be forced to equally share in this debt when they aren't at all responsible for it?
Further, you act like UCLA has been paying Cal all this time. False. LA residents have been paying Cal. I live in LA, but I am a Cal fan. But because I'm in LA, the B1G and not the Pac-12 will start profiting off of me even though I have no interest in any of the B1G teams. The UC system is a state wide body, that serves the entire state, and LA is part of that state. Saying that UCLA has been paying Cal because UCLA gets money from being in LA is absurd given that half of Cal students come from LA. LA is as much Cal's market as it is UCLA's, but TV stations don't pay out that way. UCLA is actually stealing money from Cal, not the other way around. And this do so by cutting off access to TV revenue in LA that they rightfully should be sharing in.
fat_slice said:DiabloWags said:fat_slice said:BigDaddy said:Again, what were Crist and Knowlton (or their predecessors) doing all this time to solve Cal's financial issues? Why haven't they reached out to the B1G seeking league membership?Rushinbear said:Because secret, self-serving negotiations that undercut the UC system by virtue of leaving it are bad.BigDaddy said:
UCLA found a solution to their financial woes. Why wasn't Cal working to do the same? Why didn't Crist and Knowlton work to secure Cal a place in the B1G? If you're angry, I'd direct your ire at those who have left Cal in this desperate position.
Oh I know this one ... The did not and currently are not doing godd%n thing. The most useless "leaders" for the university. I'd be surprised if they are even following this mess. They have already written their draft response (the only work they have done) which reads:
"We analyzed a number of options and and are excited to announce that Cal will be joining the MWC in 2025. We did not take this decision lightly, rather we put most weight on what really matters - the student-athlete experience. We look forward to joining our new partners in the MWC and will continue to persue academic and athletic excellence."
Crap - just realized I probably did more work on this just now than they have.
Yup.
We suffer from mediocre (at best) leadership.
Mike Williams name belongs on this list as well.
His position as Cal AD ran through May 6, 2018
I find it interesting that there are people that want to blame UCLA for our woes and that they run an athletic department that cant pay their bills. That's pretty rich, considering that for YEARS our Chancellors have been writing a check to cover the Cal IAD annual budget deficits.
Chancellor Dirks authorized a check for up to $20 million to close a Cal Athletics shortfall of $16 million just five years ago in 2017. Cal Athletics also received a $22.9 million dollar bailout from the Chancellor's Office in the previous fiscal year to resolve a similar shortfall. That deficit in 2016, was almost TRIPLE the $8.5 million deficit the year before.
'Impossible situation': Cal Athletics gets $20M bailout from chancellor's office (dailycal.org)
The more I learn about our admin the more resigned I am at our fate. I mean Jesus Christ. We are going to fall 60-70mm short of UCLA each year going forward - horrible. People underestimate the impact of this on academics. The whole US watches football - the amount of marketing and ada that UCLA will get from this will cement them as the #1 public uni. All those smart kids that want to go somewhere where they can watch and cheer for a competitive football team - they are all going to UCLA, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Great job Knowlton/Christ - you're going to get what you deserve. #EarnIt #FinishThenJob
I agree with this.....almost every single LA kid I know who attends Michigan or Wisconsin is there because they didn't get into Cal, UCLA, or USC. Schools like Michigan, Wisconsin, Oregon, and the Zona schools all have very high out of state enrollment because the out of state tuition that brings is part of their financial planning. When Cal and UCLA were in the ****ter a few years ago and UC allowed higher out of state and foreign enrollment, the blowback was massive and immediate. I attended Cal from 1976-1980 and even back then I got comments about how my spot should've gone to an in-state kid. The USNWR rankings are really weird and the fact that Notre Dame is ranked higher than Cal or UCLA basically disqualifies them as a reputable source anyway..In terms of UCLA v Cal, I'm sure there will be some kids who will choose UCLA because of the B1G football offerings. That being said, I attended UCLA for one quarter for film school, and the experience is very different from Cal. Frankly, if you're looking for great weather, proximity to the beach, the sizzle of the entertainment business, and people who are obsessed with their looks and physiques, UCLA is the place for you. If you're looking for academic rigor, super smart kids and profs, top tier departments almost universally across the board, access to SF, Marin, and the wine country, proximity to the tech industry, then Cal is for you. I also taught grad school at USC for 21 years and my experience was that the Cal grads were more academic than the UCLA grads. That's why I always refer to UCAL as Cal Lite. That pretty sums it up for me.dimitrig said:fat_slice said:DiabloWags said:fat_slice said:BigDaddy said:Again, what were Crist and Knowlton (or their predecessors) doing all this time to solve Cal's financial issues? Why haven't they reached out to the B1G seeking league membership?Rushinbear said:Because secret, self-serving negotiations that undercut the UC system by virtue of leaving it are bad.BigDaddy said:
UCLA found a solution to their financial woes. Why wasn't Cal working to do the same? Why didn't Crist and Knowlton work to secure Cal a place in the B1G? If you're angry, I'd direct your ire at those who have left Cal in this desperate position.
Oh I know this one ... The did not and currently are not doing godd%n thing. The most useless "leaders" for the university. I'd be surprised if they are even following this mess. They have already written their draft response (the only work they have done) which reads:
"We analyzed a number of options and and are excited to announce that Cal will be joining the MWC in 2025. We did not take this decision lightly, rather we put most weight on what really matters - the student-athlete experience. We look forward to joining our new partners in the MWC and will continue to persue academic and athletic excellence."
Crap - just realized I probably did more work on this just now than they have.
Yup.
We suffer from mediocre (at best) leadership.
Mike Williams name belongs on this list as well.
His position as Cal AD ran through May 6, 2018
I find it interesting that there are people that want to blame UCLA for our woes and that they run an athletic department that cant pay their bills. That's pretty rich, considering that for YEARS our Chancellors have been writing a check to cover the Cal IAD annual budget deficits.
Chancellor Dirks authorized a check for up to $20 million to close a Cal Athletics shortfall of $16 million just five years ago in 2017. Cal Athletics also received a $22.9 million dollar bailout from the Chancellor's Office in the previous fiscal year to resolve a similar shortfall. That deficit in 2016, was almost TRIPLE the $8.5 million deficit the year before.
'Impossible situation': Cal Athletics gets $20M bailout from chancellor's office (dailycal.org)
The more I learn about our admin the more resigned I am at our fate. I mean Jesus Christ. We are going to fall 60-70mm short of UCLA each year going forward - horrible. People underestimate the impact of this on academics. The whole US watches football - the amount of marketing and ada that UCLA will get from this will cement them as the #1 public uni. All those smart kids that want to go somewhere where they can watch and cheer for a competitive football team - they are all going to UCLA, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Great job Knowlton/Christ - you're going to get what you deserve. #EarnIt #FinishThenJob
I am not sure that a lot of smart kids are base their college decision on watching and cheering for sports.
If that's the case most of those kids were already choosing other schools over Cal.
I know I didn't choose Cal because of its football team. I think a lot of students would have as much fun or even more fun if we were in a lower tier conference but successful instead of a doormat in a powerful conference. It's fun to watch your team win. Losing gets old.
Most of the kids I knew in college at Cal didn't go to any games at all and if they did it was only to the Big Game. They were into other things. Athletics was really only popular among the Greeks.
And who's fault is it that they were a day late and $500 million dollars short? That's literally the whole point of this thread. Why didn't UCLA inform the Regents and Cal of its plans before it was too late to do anything about it? And do their plans create greater harms to the UC system by solving a $100 million debt and creating a $500 million debt? If you solve your problem by creating an even bigger problem for me, I'm going to take issue with you because duh! Especially if you did so without discussing with me first.BigDaddy said:Oh, I'm sure they finally got around to applying to the B1G at some point after USC and UCLA announced their plans. A day late and $500 million dollars short.Big Dog said:How do you know that they haven't/didn't? Cal is most likely at teh bottom of the BiG list of addtitions, so the BiG would just say, 'thanks for your interest, we'll get back to you.'BigDaddy said:Again, what were Crist and Knowlton (or their predecessors) doing all this time to solve Cal's financial issues? Why haven't they reached out to the B1G seeking league membership?Rushinbear said:Because secret, self-serving negotiations that undercut the UC system by virtue of leaving it are bad.BigDaddy said:UCLA found a solution to their financial woes. Why wasn't Cal working to do the same? Why didn't Crist and Knowlton work to secure Cal a place in the B1G? If you're angry, I'd direct your ire at those who have left Cal in this desperate position.berserkeley said:You are missing the main point in this silly analogy. The brother by screwing over the company he just left, leaves his parents with a huge debt and rather than take that debt equally out of every child's inheritance, the parents decide to take the debt only out of brother's inheritance.calumnus said:MrGPAC said:calumnus said:Cal_79 said:calumnus said:okaydo said:Unit2Sucks said:Oh come on, he will be criticized by the GOP if he stops UCLA and criticized if he doesn't. We all know how the game is played.Rushinbear said:
If Newsom doesn't come down on UCLA with both feet, it will sink his presidential aspirations. Another weakling.
I don't think he wants to stop it, but he does want to put them through the ringer. I get why UCLA was secretive, but it's a bad look when the UC system isn't involved. (I read somewhere the UC president was given a head's up.) The way it's being framed on Twitter, though, is if Newsom is meddling in something he shouldn't. People generally don't know the full context of how the UCLA decision affects Cal.Oh, for Pete's sake. Doesn't he have other problems like homelessness, crime, fentanyl, Southern border and Covid-19 lockdowns to keep him busy? Stay out of sports, sir. https://t.co/l6ZM2tSQ3G
— Lisa Horne (@LisaHorne) July 15, 2022
(Also, I read a Los Angeles Times opinion piece blaming him for this because he was a big proponent NIL.)
And the full impact of how it affects Cal is not yet known.
Should Cal have to share its TV revenues with Davis, UC Santa Cruz, etc?
UCLA has developed a better athletics brand than Cal and has done so in California's largest market. Part of their success is they embraced African American athletes like Jackie Robinson in the 1930s, half a century ahead of the SEC. They embraced athletics as part of their campus, Cal has only occasionally. More often than not we squandered our success. They used to share some of their value with us through the revenue pooling with all of the teams in the conference (Oregon State too, for example), now they won't.
Maybe all the UC TV revenues be pooled and shared among all the campuses' athletic departments?
I don't think Cal has any particular claim on UCLA's revenue.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ucla's actions done in the 'dark of night' have a direct negative financial impact on Cal.
BTW, why are so many accepting of the premise that it's okay to harm someone or something as long as you can make a couple extra bucks doing it?
The main "harm" is that we no longer get to share in their greater TV value.
If you have been giving your adult brother cash every year, then decide you are not going to do that anymore, he might be upset, he might feel he has been harmed because he is used to it and depends on it, but most would say you have not harmed him and are entirely in your rights.
A better analogy would be you and your brother started a company together. Its a small company (12 employees), and its looking to land a big contract that will increase profits for everyone.
But your brothers friend, who is one of those 12 employees, gets an invite to go work at a bigger company that pays much better. They really want your brothers friend, but he will only go if he gets to take your brother with him. Your brother and his friend ditch the company together for the higher payday leaving the future of your entire company in doubt.
The big contract is all but assured to be gone, other employees at the company are looking for other options, and what looked like a safe job is now up in the air and its unclear you will get good employment again, or if you do, if it will be nearly as profitable as what you have now.
The regents are like the parents who just invested a ton of money into the business a few years back, and if the company folds they'll be stuck with some significant losses.
Sure, everyone is proud of the brother for riding his friends coattails to a bigger payday...but you and your parents were left in a bad position as a result. Thanksgiving dinner is going to be awkward. Mom definitely wants answers about how all this went down without being involved in the decision *at all*. Dad apparently heard about it and thought it was fine without thinking through all the consequences, and didn't tell you or your mom.
Close, except the parents paid for your education, but they expect your business to be profitable without their having to subsidize it. Your brother and his friend realize they can make a lot more money if they join another firm where everyone brings in revenues like they do, instead of their having to subsidize you and the other weak performers in your current firm.
And while their negotiations have been secret, once they had an offer they gave you and the others in the old firm two years' notice before they would leave.
The biggest issue is that the firm they are joining wants to be one of only two left in the market. You feel that by poaching your brother and his friend, they ultimately want to eliminate competition from your firm. And you feel your brother is now complicit in that. Your brother maybe knows this is true, but feels like that would have happened whether or not they joined the new firm, so better to join the new firm.
In another analogy, they could have continued to hold our hand as we sank, dragging them down with us, or they can let go and swim for the passing ship. Our best hope is not dragging them back, it is convincing them to have the ship's captain come back and pick us up too, hopefully before we drown.
Should UCLA be forced to subsidize Cal athletics with their new found money? No. Should UCLA subsidize any debt that Cal would no longer be able to pay because of UCLA's departure? Yes. Because why should Davis, Santa Barbara, and Irvine be forced to equally share in this debt when they aren't at all responsible for it?
Further, you act like UCLA has been paying Cal all this time. False. LA residents have been paying Cal. I live in LA, but I am a Cal fan. But because I'm in LA, the B1G and not the Pac-12 will start profiting off of me even though I have no interest in any of the B1G teams. The UC system is a state wide body, that serves the entire state, and LA is part of that state. Saying that UCLA has been paying Cal because UCLA gets money from being in LA is absurd given that half of Cal students come from LA. LA is as much Cal's market as it is UCLA's, but TV stations don't pay out that way. UCLA is actually stealing money from Cal, not the other way around. And this do so by cutting off access to TV revenue in LA that they rightfully should be sharing in.
