Stop it. Jealousy and entitlement all throughout the Cal fan base. UCLA is the more valuable athletic brand in a better market and deserves to get paid more and be part of an elite conference. Cal doesn’t.
College athletics is a big business: we made a big boy move. Why should UCLA athletics care about Cal athletics when we are direct com…
Stop it. Jealousy and entitlement all throughout the Cal fan base. UCLA is the more valuable athletic brand in a better market and deserves to get paid more and be part of an elite conference. Cal doesn’t.
College athletics is a big business: we made a big boy move. Why should UCLA athletics care about Cal athletics when we are direct competitors? By communicating this move we ran the risk of it being derailed through the application of political pressure even thought we had the legal right and authority to make this happen.
The selfish actions on behalf of UCLA put a death nail in a historic conference and put 1/3 of the conference in serious financial peril, including a team in your own university system. UCLA and Cal are, essentially, siblings...but you decided to collude with a private school instead of acting in the best interest of the state (who subsidizes the campus). U$C picking you as their prison b*tch bunky was a vindictive move on their part, and you bent right over. The Pac would probably have survived if only one of the LA schools left. And BTY your football team is not all that great; probably one the most consistently disappointing and underperforming teams in the Pac. Your fans suck too. And your hand clap is stupid. Have fun licking Tommy Trojans crack.
This is why Cal deserves nothing. You just substantiated my original comment.
UCLA didn’t destroy the conference. Incompetent management by the previous and current pac12 commissioners did. And the subsidy UCLA receives from the state is a joke. It makes up such a small part of our annual budget. UCLA is more valuable to the state and to the UC system as a whole than the other way around.
Check your math (probably why you did not get into Cal). The majority of your budget is from the state (~40%) and tuition. More importantly, the UC is funded as a block, ultimately: a single pie that gets cut into pieces....with whip cream and cherries on top from grants at each school.
And sure, the Pac-12 administration and presidents screwed the pooch, but it was the powder blue gimp of U$C that struck the death blow. You planned it in secret without communicating your intentions with the UC. That's why you will pay buddy!
It will be fun to watch the Midwest schools have more fans in the Rose Bowl than y'all on a weekly basis.
Wrong. Check UCLA’s annual report. State grants make up approximately 5-6% of UCLA’s annual revenue. UCLA is self sustaining and does not need the state of California. Good job Cal grad, looks like you suck at due diligence. And we had no obligation to communicate anything to you or to UC based on the established bylaws. You deserve nothing. Stop looking for free unearned handouts. UCLA > Cal (except for your slightly better academic reputation we are better at everything else. Better athletics. World class hospital. Better location. Better quality of life. )
And if I were a UCLA fan, I would be praying for Cal to get into a P5 conference. Because I guarantee you that if this does not happen, you are going to be paying at the upper end of the 2-10 million range, maybe higher. Disparaging Cal is not in your best interest, at this point.
Let me ask you this, since you're asking us to accept some hard truths, most of which may be more temporary than permanent, such as our "brand," but can you honestly say that the B!G would have invited UCLA, without $C being invited?
Moreover, why are $C and, apparently, UCLA, so determined to keep us out of the B!G, when, even at our present levels of the past ten years, we have managed a middling record and, as such, could easily rival half the teams in the B!G?
Jealous of Cal? Funny. Big 10 doesn’t want you because you don’t provide enough value. UCLA and USC could care less if you’re in the conference or not. If anything, I’d guarantee both UCLA and USC would rather have Cal in big10 instead of Oregon. There are many that would love to see cal and Stanford in the big 10 because it would ease travel. UCLA and USC have no say in who big 10 adds or doesn’t add because we don’t currently have a vote since we aren’t officially part of the big10.
UCLA has a much stronger historical athletic brand. It’s not even close. Cal has almost no shot at surpassing UCLA’s athletic brand. Brand is cumulative, and temporary short term success isn’t enough to change the value of the brand. Historically, UCLA is #18 in football and #1 in basketball. Cal isn’t close in either sport.
UCLA and USC were invited because both are worth a lot and are in the highly lucrative LA market. We have a competitive durable advantage from a value standpoint because of the sheer size of the LA market. UCLA and USC together add value to the big 10 conference and give every big 10 member school more money by having the entire LA market to itself.
UCLA is valuable in its own right. They were approached at the same time because big 10 wanted both schools to corner the whole LA market. UCLA was not an afterthought like many would like to believe.
I find a hard time believing USC is a hard no on Cal and Furd. Makes no sense. They are a hard no on Oregon and big 10 didn’t care what they thought.
USC was never going to say no to double the money. It was UCLA the big 10 had to convince, not SC. They could have easily taken just SC if that’s what they wanted.
Stop it. Jealousy and entitlement all throughout the Cal fan base. UCLA is the more valuable athletic brand in a better market and deserves to get paid more and be part of an elite conference. Cal doesn’t.
College athletics is a big business: we made a big boy move. Why should UCLA athletics care about Cal athletics when we are direct competitors? By communicating this move we ran the risk of it being derailed through the application of political pressure even thought we had the legal right and authority to make this happen.
The selfish actions on behalf of UCLA put a death nail in a historic conference and put 1/3 of the conference in serious financial peril, including a team in your own university system. UCLA and Cal are, essentially, siblings...but you decided to collude with a private school instead of acting in the best interest of the state (who subsidizes the campus). U$C picking you as their prison b*tch bunky was a vindictive move on their part, and you bent right over. The Pac would probably have survived if only one of the LA schools left. And BTY your football team is not all that great; probably one the most consistently disappointing and underperforming teams in the Pac. Your fans suck too. And your hand clap is stupid. Have fun licking Tommy Trojans crack.
This is why Cal deserves nothing. You just substantiated my original comment.
UCLA didn’t destroy the conference. Incompetent management by the previous and current pac12 commissioners did. And the subsidy UCLA receives from the state is a joke. It makes up such a small part of our annual budget. UCLA is more valuable to the state and to the UC system as a whole than the other way around.
Check your math (probably why you did not get into Cal). The majority of your budget is from the state (~40%) and tuition. More importantly, the UC is funded as a block, ultimately: a single pie that gets cut into pieces....with whip cream and cherries on top from grants at each school.
And sure, the Pac-12 administration and presidents screwed the pooch, but it was the powder blue gimp of U$C that struck the death blow. You planned it in secret without communicating your intentions with the UC. That's why you will pay buddy!
It will be fun to watch the Midwest schools have more fans in the Rose Bowl than y'all on a weekly basis.
Wrong. Check UCLA’s annual report. State grants make up approximately 5-6% of UCLA’s annual revenue. UCLA is self sustaining and does not need the state of California. Good job Cal grad, looks like you suck at due diligence. And we had no obligation to communicate anything to you or to UC based on the established bylaws. You deserve nothing. Stop looking for free unearned handouts. UCLA > Cal (except for your slightly better academic reputation we are better at everything else. Better athletics. World class hospital. Better location. Better quality of life. )
And if I were a UCLA fan, I would be praying for Cal to get into a P5 conference. Because I guarantee you that if this does not happen, you are going to be paying at the upper end of the 2-10 million range, maybe higher. Disparaging Cal is not in your best interest, at this point.
Let me ask you this, since you're asking us to accept some hard truths, most of which may be more temporary than permanent, such as our "brand," but can you honestly say that the B!G would have invited UCLA, without $C being invited?
Moreover, why are $C and, apparently, UCLA, so determined to keep us out of the B!G, when, even at our present levels of the past ten years, we have managed a middling record and, as such, could easily rival half the teams in the B!G?
Jealousy?
Jealous of Cal? Funny. Big 10 doesn’t want you because you don’t provide enough value. UCLA and USC could care less if you’re in the conference or not. If anything, I’d guarantee both UCLA and USC would rather have Cal in big10 instead of Oregon. There are many that would love to see cal and Stanford in the big 10 because it would ease travel. UCLA and USC have no say in who big 10 adds or doesn’t add because we don’t currently have a vote since we aren’t officially part of the big10.
UCLA has a much stronger historical athletic brand. It’s not even close. Cal has almost no shot at surpassing UCLA’s athletic brand. Brand is cumulative, and temporary short term success isn’t enough to change the value of the brand. Historically, UCLA is #18 in football and #1 in basketball. Cal isn’t close in either sport.
UCLA and USC were invited because both are worth a lot and are in the highly lucrative LA market. We have a competitive durable advantage from a value standpoint because of the sheer size of the LA market. UCLA and USC together add value to the big 10 conference and give every big 10 member school more money by having the entire LA market to itself.
You danced around the hard question.
Would UCLA have been invited without $C?
And the rumor is that $C, without a vote, but clout similar to ND, is a hard "no" on Furd and Cal.
UCLA is valuable in its own right. They were approached at the same time because big 10 wanted both schools to corner the whole LA market. UCLA was not an afterthought like many would like to believe.
I find a hard time believing USC is a hard no on Cal and Furd. Makes no sense. They are a hard no on Oregon and big 10 didn’t care what they thought.
Sounds like you harbor doubts.
Would they have invited UCLA, if USC said "no"?
I think maybe, but, like you yourself say, it was about the L.A. market.
USC was never going to say no to double the money. It was UCLA the big 10 had to convince, not SC. They could have easily taken just SC if that’s what they wanted.
Now, that sounds like the $C we all know.
But they needed "to corner the market..."
"Throw me in Hell,
As long as it pays."
Again. Fart comment. Lots of noise and smell and no material argument.
The irony, you aren’t very bright are you?
And thus I say prior to USC kickoff, I shall squash my differences with you and say in unison that USC can take an L today
My point is your argument makes 0 sense in the context of a satellite university. If you want your way, be a USC fan.
It’s pretty dull in your head that I’ve been running around I gotta admit