Honestly, I am not sure what your thing is about Cal, but maybe you need to get out more.
And if you're going on about Cal/Berkeley's extreme politics, there's plenty of us, Cal graduates, that may agree with you. That being said, I'm not sure what your endgame is, here, trolling this site.
Honestly, I am not sure what your thing is about Cal, but maybe you need to get out more.
And if you're going on about Cal/Berkeley's extreme politics, there's plenty of us, Cal graduates, that may agree with you. That being said, I'm not sure what your endgame is, here, trolling this site.
I never had a dislike for cal, until the calimony thing! This is all about cal alums, and their egoтАЩs. Those regents, many who are cal alums, did everything they could to stop ucla from going to the big ten. They didnтАЩt want to see ucla go to a higher level than cal. They work for the state of California, and they were trying to deny ucla from making more money, and getting out of debt. Those regents should have been fired the minute they voted no on ucla going to the big ten.
You may blame the Regents for giving Cal alums the very idea that some manner of restitution was/is owed. As others have pointed out, we are both subsidiaries of the same greater body, so the boss can do as the boss sees fit.
The issue is not UCLA making more, it's Cal getting damaged in the process. If UCLA had informed people through the proper channels, Cal could have worked together for a reduced Big Ten invite or gotten the gears moving earlier to make more proactive rather than reactive moves. Right now we are taking the worst deal possible as a result of UCLA acting independently.
We are all members of one public university system. If UCLA damages UC Berkeley from making money (and at this point definitely losing out on it), that is going to peeve the Regents. That's why Calimony was introduced.
LetтАЩs put calimony aside. Why did those regents vote no on ucla going to the big ten. Ucla is in debt, and that was their lifeline. Calimony had already been introduced, but those cal alum regents still voted no. It was all about egoтАЩs!
So you're taking it out on us? It's my understanding, under some states' laws, such as North Carolina, both UNC and NCState must be in the same conference. One can understand why public schools would be subject to such limitations, if only to simplify costs.
Why is this worth your time?
Honestly, I am not sure what your thing is about Cal, but maybe you need to get out more.
And if you're going on about Cal/Berkeley's extreme politics, there's plenty of us, Cal graduates, that may agree with you. That being said, I'm not sure what your endgame is, here, trolling this site.
I never had a dislike for cal, until the calimony thing! This is all about cal alums, and their egoтАЩs. Those regents, many who are cal alums, did everything they could to stop ucla from going to the big ten. They didnтАЩt want to see ucla go to a higher level than cal. They work for the state of California, and they were trying to deny ucla from making more money, and getting out of debt. Those regents should have been fired the minute they voted no on ucla going to the big ten.
You may blame the Regents for giving Cal alums the very idea that some manner of restitution was/is owed. As others have pointed out, we are both subsidiaries of the same greater body, so the boss can do as the boss sees fit.
The issue is not UCLA making more, it's Cal getting damaged in the process. If UCLA had informed people through the proper channels, Cal could have worked together for a reduced Big Ten invite or gotten the gears moving earlier to make more proactive rather than reactive moves. Right now we are taking the worst deal possible as a result of UCLA acting independently.
We are all members of one public university system. If UCLA damages UC Berkeley from making money (and at this point definitely losing out on it), that is going to peeve the Regents. That's why Calimony was introduced.
LetтАЩs put calimony aside. Why did those regents vote no on ucla going to the big ten. Ucla is in debt, and that was their lifeline. Calimony had already been introduced, but those cal alum regents still voted no. It was all about egoтАЩs!
So you're taking it out on us? It's my understanding, under some states' laws, such as North Carolina, both UNC and NCState must be in the same conference. One can understand why public schools would be subject to such limitations, if only to simplify costs.