Rushinbear said:
Is the silence coming from the post-Regents meeting saying anything? Meeting was scheduled for 7/20-21.
Rushinbear said:
Is the silence coming from the post-Regents meeting saying anything? Meeting was scheduled for 7/20-21.
Look who Forbes rated as the #1 university (public or private) in the entire country: https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/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 don't know why people expect to hear about these things immediately. Remember when the UCLA move got announced and people here all assumed that meant the Regents had already signed off on it? Turns out, maybe not. But it took several weeks to learn that.Rushinbear said:
Is the silence coming from the post-Regents meeting saying anything? Meeting was scheduled for 7/20-21.
berserkeley said:
Look who Forbes rated as the #1 university (public or private) in the entire country: https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/
#StillNoLosAngelesium
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-21/uc-regents-ask-for-a-review-of-uclas-controversial-pac-12-exitDiabloWags said:Rushinbear said:
Is the silence coming from the post-Regents meeting saying anything? Meeting was scheduled for 7/20-21.
.Notice of Regents Meeting, July 20-22, 2021 | Board of Regents (universityofcalifornia.edu)
Not a peep so far.
Above is their schedule and agenda.
berserkeley said: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.
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
BigDaddy said:
But Board of Regents Chair Richard Leib told The Times on Wednesday that the delegation of authority "didn't necessarily anticipate this type of action."
fat_slice said:Rushinbear said:
Is the silence coming from the post-Regents meeting saying anything? Meeting was scheduled for 7/20-21.
It's saying everything we all knew - no one gives a d*mn about our program (externally and internally) and Gavin can't do jack squat.
BigDaddy said:berserkeley said: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.
Who's fault is it?! The problem started years before USC and UCLA announced they were joining the B1G. The $500 million dollar debt belongs to Cal. They created the entire problem. To say that UCLA is "creating a bigger problem" ignores the fact that the whole financial mess is due to Cal's irresponsible and profligate spending, their failure to address that debt in any meaningful way, and their total inability to put a dynamic product on the football field or basketball court.
Again, why weren't Crist and Knowlton trying to get Cal into the B1G? USC and UCLA were working on this for months. What was Cal doing to secure it's own financial future? Anything?
So then why are any of us giving a sh$t about our program? I think that's the question I need to ask myself - and make it easier for me to stomach miss watching our football games and rivalries that I thought actually meant something.Big Dog 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
Actually, they don't and that is perhaps Cal's issue. There are plenty of Cal faculty/admin/students who don't care about football adn would rather get rid of it; at best they are indifferent. For many years, athletes in class had to hide the fact that they were athletes.
In contrast, UCLA has embraced sports much more. Walking around their campus just feels different. They've invested in big time football and b'ball, and we invested in Mark Fox.
UCLA is prepared to compete in NIL, Cal is not (and likely will never be).
BigDaddy said:berserkeley said: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.
Who's fault is it?! The problem started years before USC and UCLA announced they were joining the B1G. The $500 million dollar debt belongs to Cal. They created the entire problem. To say that UCLA is "creating a bigger problem" ignores the fact that the whole financial mess is due to Cal's irresponsible and profligate spending, their failure to address that debt in any meaningful way, and their total inability to put a dynamic product on the football field or basketball court.
Again, why weren't Crist and Knowlton trying to get Cal into the B1G? USC and UCLA were working on this for months. What was Cal doing to secure it's own financial future? Anything?
BigDaddy said:berserkeley said: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.
Who's fault is it?! The problem started years before USC and UCLA announced they were joining the B1G. The $500 million dollar debt belongs to Cal. They created the entire problem. To say that UCLA is "creating a bigger problem" ignores the fact that the whole financial mess is due to Cal's irresponsible and profligate spending, their failure to address that debt in any meaningful way, and their total inability to put a dynamic product on the football field or basketball court.
Again, why weren't Crist and Knowlton trying to get Cal into the B1G? USC and UCLA were working on this for months. What was Cal doing to secure it's own financial future? Anything?
Time for some tough love. We were never going to be able to pay down the $500M debt. The projections were fantastical and they've been criticized from day one. We had so many discussions back in the day about whether this whole thing was going to work out and it became clear relatively early on that it wasn't going to. The ESP seats never had a high enough take rate and our program didn't improve enough to convince people to shell out for those seats.berserkeley said: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.
Unit2Sucks said:
Time for some tough love. We were never going to be able to pay down the $500M debt. The projections were fantastical and they've been criticized from day one. We had so many discussions back in the day about whether this whole thing was going to work out and it became clear relatively early on that it wasn't going to. The ESP seats never had a high enough take rate and our program didn't improve enough to convince people to shell out for those seats.
Whether or not UCLA jumped to the B1G, we were going to need a bailout for CMS. This has been crystal clear for years. Time to stop pretending that it's UCLA's fault that we got into credit card debt.
Unit2Sucks said:Time for some tough love. We were never going to be able to pay down the $500M debt. The projections were fantastical and they've been criticized from day one. We had so many discussions back in the day about whether this whole thing was going to work out and it became clear relatively early on that it wasn't going to. The ESP seats never had a high enough take rate and our program didn't improve enough to convince people to shell out for those seats.berserkeley said: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.
Whether or not UCLA jumped to the B1G, we were going to need a bailout for CMS. This has been crystal clear for years. Time to stop pretending that it's UCLA's fault that we got into credit card debt.
MrGPAC said:Unit2Sucks said:Time for some tough love. We were never going to be able to pay down the $500M debt. The projections were fantastical and they've been criticized from day one. We had so many discussions back in the day about whether this whole thing was going to work out and it became clear relatively early on that it wasn't going to. The ESP seats never had a high enough take rate and our program didn't improve enough to convince people to shell out for those seats.berserkeley said: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.
Whether or not UCLA jumped to the B1G, we were going to need a bailout for CMS. This has been crystal clear for years. Time to stop pretending that it's UCLA's fault that we got into credit card debt.
We aren't blaming UCLA for our debt predicament. We are pointing out that the debt is technically owned by the regents, so the regents have a real stake in the revenue that Berkeley generates from their athletics. UCLA may not be beholden to us, but they are to the Regents at least at some level.
Well said.Unit2Sucks said:Time for some tough love. We were never going to be able to pay down the $500M debt. The projections were fantastical and they've been criticized from day one. We had so many discussions back in the day about whether this whole thing was going to work out and it became clear relatively early on that it wasn't going to. The ESP seats never had a high enough take rate and our program didn't improve enough to convince people to shell out for those seats.berserkeley said: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.
Whether or not UCLA jumped to the B1G, we were going to need a bailout for CMS. This has been crystal clear for years. Time to stop pretending that it's UCLA's fault that we got into credit card debt.
01Bear said:
If anything, Cal fans should be rooting for Gov. Newsom as his "meddling" is helping Cal gain admission into the B1G. All the teeth gnashing here over Newsom's comments is counterproductive. Cal should be rooting for UCLA's admission into the B1G being contingent on Cal's admission as well. Governor Newsom's "meddling" seems directed toward that end.
+1000. We all may as well give up now seems to be the sentiment of a lot of posters here.sycasey said:01Bear said:
If anything, Cal fans should be rooting for Gov. Newsom as his "meddling" is helping Cal gain admission into the B1G. All the teeth gnashing here over Newsom's comments is counterproductive. Cal should be rooting for UCLA's admission into the B1G being contingent on Cal's admission as well. Governor Newsom's "meddling" seems directed toward that end.
Amen to all of that, but especially this part. No one engages in counterproductive self-loathing like Cal fans.
I promise to vote for Gavin Newsom when he runs for POTUS or whatever if he can arrange this for us.sycasey said:01Bear said:
If anything, Cal fans should be rooting for Gov. Newsom as his "meddling" is helping Cal gain admission into the B1G. All the teeth gnashing here over Newsom's comments is counterproductive. Cal should be rooting for UCLA's admission into the B1G being contingent on Cal's admission as well. Governor Newsom's "meddling" seems directed toward that end.
Amen to all of that, but especially this part. No one engages in counterproductive self-loathing like Cal fans.
philbert said:+1000. We all may as well give up now seems to be the sentiment of a lot of posters here.sycasey said:01Bear said:
If anything, Cal fans should be rooting for Gov. Newsom as his "meddling" is helping Cal gain admission into the B1G. All the teeth gnashing here over Newsom's comments is counterproductive. Cal should be rooting for UCLA's admission into the B1G being contingent on Cal's admission as well. Governor Newsom's "meddling" seems directed toward that end.
Amen to all of that, but especially this part. No one engages in counterproductive self-loathing like Cal fans.
You keep saying this. Even if true, so what? The PAC (and Cal) would be much better off if we'd retained one of the major schools in the LA market from a media rights deal. Honestly if USC had gone with Washington (or whoever) we'd still be better off. Why is this hard to grasp?BigDaddy said:
USC is going to the B1G with or without UCLA.
Strykur said:
Obvious, but what is Newsom's endgame if Regents has no agency to kill the deal, why do this crap? Either he is being oblivious and ridiculous (which is par for the course for him), or there is some very nuanced political calculus at play here, if not that then this whole saga is baffling.
sycasey said:Strykur said:
Obvious, but what is Newsom's endgame if Regents has no agency to kill the deal, why do this crap? Either he is being oblivious and ridiculous (which is par for the course for him), or there is some very nuanced political calculus at play here, if not that then this whole saga is baffling.
Maybe they can't "kill the deal" specifically but they can make life difficult for UCLA in other ways. I don't think they want to be on the governor's bad side.
Sebastabear said:You keep saying this. Even if true, so what? The PAC (and Cal) would be much better off if we'd retained one of the major schools in the LA market from a media rights deal. Honestly if USC had gone with Washington (or whoever) we'd still be better off. Why is this hard to grasp?BigDaddy said:
USC is going to the B1G with or without UCLA.
UCLA harmed Cal and the system and probably cost the system more in aggregate than they will personally be gaining, It's ridiculous to continue to assert that's ok.
Love your thinking, but am really skeptical that the Regents can play hardball with the Little Sisters of the Poor, much less BiG and Fox Sports.01Bear said:
Why is it assumed that UCLA's going to be prevented from joining the B1G by the Regents/Newsom? That's just ridiculous on so many counts.
Again, I still see Cal's entry into the B1G being based on litigation against the Regents for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, etc. The fact that Newsom and the Regents are looking into UCLA's deal gives me more (not less) hope that Cal will be admitted into the B1G. Of course, Newsom and the Regents have to play this as if they will refuse to permit UCLA's admission into the B1G without Cal's admission. in order to have any leverage in discussions with the B1G.
Let them go and suffer. They think that, because they have beaten up on Pac teams in the past (except recently), they'll be able to dominate 3k miles away in winter before 85k fans screaming for blood? They will become the pariah at every away game - fans will love to hate SC and will make them pay...for Hollywood, for OJ, for all the bad that CA represents to them.Big Dog said:Love your thinking, but am really skeptical that the Regents can play hardball with the Little Sisters of the Poor, much less BiG and Fox Sports.01Bear said:
Why is it assumed that UCLA's going to be prevented from joining the B1G by the Regents/Newsom? That's just ridiculous on so many counts.
Again, I still see Cal's entry into the B1G being based on litigation against the Regents for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, etc. The fact that Newsom and the Regents are looking into UCLA's deal gives me more (not less) hope that Cal will be admitted into the B1G. Of course, Newsom and the Regents have to play this as if they will refuse to permit UCLA's admission into the B1G without Cal's admission. in order to have any leverage in discussions with the B1G.
btw, USC has been frustrated that they have not been given a bigger piece of teh Pac pie for a long time. No way, they change their mind, unless the Pac was willing to give them perhaps 2-3x their current 1/12th share.
calumnus said:sycasey said:Strykur said:
Obvious, but what is Newsom's endgame if Regents has no agency to kill the deal, why do this crap? Either he is being oblivious and ridiculous (which is par for the course for him), or there is some very nuanced political calculus at play here, if not that then this whole saga is baffling.
Maybe they can't "kill the deal" specifically but they can make life difficult for UCLA in other ways. I don't think they want to be on the governor's bad side.
Yes, the Regents can make life difficult for UCLA. Other than vengeance, or to get a payment for Cal From UCLA, I don't see what this does for us. Most importantly, I really don't see what leverage we get with the B1G by this.
BigDaddy said:
USC is going to the B1G with or without UCLA.
