While it's true that UCLA's athletics are almost entirely self-supported, that does not also mean that the University and Regents don't necessarily have some entitlement to say something here. So you may think that's the way it should be, but may not be what in fact is. In fact, they can probably do whatever they want if they'd like to set that precedent. UCLA athletics still wears the institution's brand and trademarks, they use it's facilities, and it's student-athletes receive scholarships from said University which allow them to participate as part of UCLA athletics. Regardless of funding, they are intertwined.
Very good points which I agree with 100%. This is in line with the fact that any major expenditure, such as hiring a new head coach, needs sign off from the Regents. In regard to stopping UCLA from joining the B1G, most writers are unanimous in doubting they have any power here. Also, was addressing the original question which was "UCLA continuing to receive California state funding"....to which my original answer stands. Athletic dept receives zero state funding.
Maybe. I'm not really concerned with what the writers have to say, as they don't have any greater insight into what can or can't be done by the Regents. This is a fairly unprecedented situation. But there is incentive for the Regents to allow UCLA to jump and it's $100 million per year. But they do have to try to understand the collateral impact that will have elsewhere in the system--mainly Cal. They may want to try to use their leverage to get Cal an invite (which is all but likely to fail, at least now). More likely they will reallocate funds towards Cal's losses, which seems to me the most plausible scenario here.
What funds are you referring to? The additional revenue generated from UCLA's membership in the B1G? There's very little chance of that happening. If you are referring to the general funds received from the state, that's even less likely.
Great points Pedro! This may have already been answered, but what share of UCLA's windfall will the state actually see? Is it UCLA itself that gets the $100M/year? If UCLA's athletic dept receives zero state funding than the state probably stands to receive...$0. That seems somewhat wrong for all the reasons Pedro enumerated above. Even if UCLA is almost entirely self-supported, they do receive some support from the state, not the least of which is the tax-exempt status of the university. It would seem that the state should be entitled to something. The other question is if that $100M/year is all for the athletic department. I would hope that some of that would trickle down to the students who worked hard to get into a very selective school.
On another note, it would be great for Cal to receive any additional funds. That would save more sports and would also not make the debt of the football stadium/facilities seem so daunting. I would not want Cal to leave the Pac-12, but it's not up to me. It's a money grab on one end and surviving to play in a power conference on the other end.
Not qualified to answer, but CalтАЩs stadium debt is no doubt first and foremost on the minds of the Regents. Barring a B1G invite to Cal, UCLAтАЩs move takes Cal farther from ever getting out from under that mountain of debt. Which is why I suspect that at least some of that UCLA TV money will find itтАЩs way to Berkeley.
I believe Cal is similar with their powerful alumni base, though UCLA also generates substantial revenue from their medical center. With that said, it really pains me to see what's happening to the Pac12....though I fully understand UCLA/USC's financial motivations. I don't know how I'm going to get used to UCLA not playing it's traditional west coast opponents every year. It would have been awesome if Scott had actually pulled off that huge heist of Oklahoma & Texas he attempted ten years ago.
Totally agree Tony. Regional rivalries mean so much - it's a shame that they are going away. Can't imagine Cal and Stanford not having The Big Game, Big Swim, etc.
Another thought: The idea of the student-athlete is such a joke now - at least for football players who basically dedicate all their time to practices, games, training, etc. Now throw the travel on top of that (for UCLA/USC). SEC/ACC/Pac-12/Big-10 - the power conferences - should just end the charade and just run their football programs like minor league baseball - pay the players (in addition to NIL) and just provide school during the off-season. I guess traveling is a part of college sports, but now it is starting to seem excessive when you have to travel 2/3 time zones to play a conference game.
It's because the athletic department is not funded with state funds. In fact, over 90% of UCLA total operating budget is not from public funds.
While it's true that UCLA's athletics are almost entirely self-supported, that does not also mean that the University and Regents don't necessarily have some entitlement to say something here. So you may think that's the way it should be, but may not be what in fact is. In fact, they can probably do whatever they want if they'd like to set that precedent. UCLA athletics still wears the institution's brand and trademarks, they use it's facilities, and it's student-athletes receive scholarships from said University which allow them to participate as part of UCLA athletics. Regardless of funding, they are intertwined.
Very good points which I agree with 100%. This is in line with the fact that any major expenditure, such as hiring a new head coach, needs sign off from the Regents. In regard to stopping UCLA from joining the B1G, most writers are unanimous in doubting they have any power here. Also, was addressing the original question which was "UCLA continuing to receive California state funding"....to which my original answer stands. Athletic dept receives zero state funding.
Maybe. I'm not really concerned with what the writers have to say, as they don't have any greater insight into what can or can't be done by the Regents. This is a fairly unprecedented situation. But there is incentive for the Regents to allow UCLA to jump and it's $100 million per year. But they do have to try to understand the collateral impact that will have elsewhere in the system--mainly Cal. They may want to try to use their leverage to get Cal an invite (which is all but likely to fail, at least now). More likely they will reallocate funds towards Cal's losses, which seems to me the most plausible scenario here.
What funds are you referring to? The additional revenue generated from UCLA's membership in the B1G? There's very little chance of that happening. If you are referring to the general funds received from the state, that's even less likely.
Great points Pedro! This may have already been answered, but what share of UCLA's windfall will the state actually see? Is it UCLA itself that gets the $100M/year? If UCLA's athletic dept receives zero state funding than the state probably stands to receive...$0. That seems somewhat wrong for all the reasons Pedro enumerated above. Even if UCLA is almost entirely self-supported, they do receive some support from the state, not the least of which is the tax-exempt status of the university. It would seem that the state should be entitled to something. The other question is if that $100M/year is all for the athletic department. I would hope that some of that would trickle down to the students who worked hard to get into a very selective school.
On another note, it would be great for Cal to receive any additional funds. That would save more sports and would also not make the debt of the football stadium/facilities seem so daunting. I would not want Cal to leave the Pac-12, but it's not up to me. It's a money grab on one end and surviving to play in a power conference on the other end.
How much of that windfall will be spent on higher travel costs to all the other sports?
Not qualified to answer, but CalтАЩs stadium debt is no doubt first and foremost on the minds of the Regents. Barring a B1G invite to Cal, UCLAтАЩs move takes Cal farther from ever getting out from under that mountain of debt. Which is why I suspect that at least some of that UCLA TV money will find itтАЩs way to Berkeley.
Thanks Tony! Appreciate that and the over 90% figure is very noteworthy.
I believe Cal is similar with their powerful alumni base, though UCLA also generates substantial revenue from their medical center. With that said, it really pains me to see what's happening to the Pac12....though I fully understand UCLA/USC's financial motivations. I don't know how I'm going to get used to UCLA not playing it's traditional west coast opponents every year. It would have been awesome if Scott had actually pulled off that huge heist of Oklahoma & Texas he attempted ten years ago.
Totally agree Tony. Regional rivalries mean so much - it's a shame that they are going away. Can't imagine Cal and Stanford not having The Big Game, Big Swim, etc.
Another thought: The idea of the student-athlete is such a joke now - at least for football players who basically dedicate all their time to practices, games, training, etc. Now throw the travel on top of that (for UCLA/USC). SEC/ACC/Pac-12/Big-10 - the power conferences - should just end the charade and just run their football programs like minor league baseball - pay the players (in addition to NIL) and just provide school during the off-season. I guess traveling is a part of college sports, but now it is starting to seem excessive when you have to travel 2/3 time zones to play a conference game.
Cal does get substantially more support from the University than UCLA does from its.