You think? My understanding of the 'agreement' outlined by the UC Regents was that the 'Calimony' tax exerted upon UCLA was to make up for any shortfall in the Pac-12 media deal as a result of UCLA departing the Pac-12. It's athletic welfare at the most ridiculous level - expecting and demanding a handout because you mishandled your athl…
You think? My understanding of the 'agreement' outlined by the UC Regents was that the 'Calimony' tax exerted upon UCLA was to make up for any shortfall in the Pac-12 media deal as a result of UCLA departing the Pac-12. It's athletic welfare at the most ridiculous level - expecting and demanding a handout because you mishandled your athletic department and it's finances is ridiculous. Cal alums should be (and a few are) embarrassed of such action.
I hear the socialistic leaning UC Regents should expect to get some push back from UCLA regarding this 'Calimony' tax they would like to levy now that Cal as abandoned the Pac-12 media deal for a much lower media deal in a league that clearly doesn't want them.
It will get even more interesting when Clemson & FSU figure out a way to dump the ACC and move to one of the tier 1 power conferences.
Now for a different perspective. My entire family (parents, aunts, uncles, brother and wife) are UCLA grads. I was raised as an avid and partisan UCLA football and basketball fan going back to the 1950's. I broke the mold and went to Cal in the late '60's. Being raised in LA, I have countless lifelong friends who attended UCLA and not a single one has expressed anything but abject sadness and disappointment for UCLA's decision to join with USC to abandon the Pac-12. That said, it was clear that the decision came on the coattails of USC, based on $$$$ and motivated, in significant part, by the dire financial condition of UCLA's Athletic Department (dare I say, in your own words, "(They) mishandled (their) Athletic Department and it's finances"). This was conceived under the cloak of darkness and done, initially, without the advance knowledge and/or prior approval of the Board of Regents (BofR). Once it all came out and the furor ensued, the General Counsel of the BofR opined that the BofR could nix the deal. That's when the compromise was worked out: UCLA could leave but must pay Calimony to Cal in order to do so. That's not "socialism". It's the cost of doing business and, on balance, still a better deal than you deserved. UCLA and USC doomed the Pac-12 and their actions precipitated all that was to follow. Note to UCLA - Take your $45-$65 million, less Calimony, and stop complaining. Save your regrets (and apologies) for Oregon St and Washington St and their fans.
LOL....are you kidding me? Complaining....Cal supporters are the ones whining. They finally have to carry their own weight and can't stop crying about moving to a second tier conference. And I need to clear up some 'misinformation' you and other Cal supporters continue to spread.
First of all, UCLA's athletic department's debt wasn't due to any 'mishandling', it was the direct result of a global pandemic which stopped all of UCLA's revenue sources - ticket sales, media revenue, brand partnership revenue (i.e., Under Armour), etc. For the most recent academic year, the UCLA athletic department (via the ever so generous BofR) was given $60,000.00 in direct institutional support. In the same year Cal received over $20,000,000.00 in direct institutional support. So no one can fault the UCLA AD for not anticipating a global pandemic that killed practically all of it's revenue sources.
In addition, it was not a secret that both UCLA & USC AD's were interested in adding new members to the Pac-12 or to merge with another league to increase the exposure and competitiveness of their athletes, as well as create a larger stage to enhance future NIL opportunities (remember it was a former UCLA athlete who's lawsuit led to the NIL ruling). This was no secret. UCLA athletes shouldn't be punished for embracing the changes in college sports.
And like any other entity considering a merger or acquisition, the deal was not shared or published until it was signed and done. Why would they need to engage the BofR? The BofR has never had any type of oversight over UC athletes before why would they start now? Suddenly now the BofR wants to get involved? Where has their support been in the past?
The furor was over being left behind. The furor is over the fact that Cal has to now carry it's own weight, and it clearly is not able to do so. So like any other welfare recipient about to lose it's handout, it is grasping at whatever is nearby. Since UCLA & USC didn't violate any 'rule' or 'bylaw' of the Pac-12 Cal had no choice but to shakedown UCLA.
UCLA & USC didn't kill the Pac-12, the Pac-12 leadership or lack thereof did. Athletics has always been a big part of each school's culture, and they realized that in order to stay competitive and attract top athletes they needed to change too.
We'll see what the BofR decides when they meet next week. The circumstances around the agreement reached last December have changed. Cal has voluntarily chosen to leave the Pac-12 and move to a different conference for significantly less media revenue. And yet they still appear to expect a handout from UCLA to do so. As a former UCLA athlete myself, I hope and expect the Bruins to push back on that unfairness.
You think? My understanding of the 'agreement' outlined by the UC Regents was that the 'Calimony' tax exerted upon UCLA was to make up for any shortfall in the Pac-12 media deal as a result of UCLA departing the Pac-12. It's athletic welfare at the most ridiculous level - expecting and demanding a handout because you mishandled your athletic department and it's finances is ridiculous. Cal alums should be (and a few are) embarrassed of such action.
I hear the socialistic leaning UC Regents should expect to get some push back from UCLA regarding this 'Calimony' tax they would like to levy now that Cal as abandoned the Pac-12 media deal for a much lower media deal in a league that clearly doesn't want them.
It will get even more interesting when Clemson & FSU figure out a way to dump the ACC and move to one of the tier 1 power conferences.
If the ACC didn't want Cal, they would not have approved Cal joining.
I enjoy socal people whining about Calimony. fucla has to pay it, tears not withstanding.
Now for a different perspective. My entire family (parents, aunts, uncles, brother and wife) are UCLA grads. I was raised as an avid and partisan UCLA football and basketball fan going back to the 1950's. I broke the mold and went to Cal in the late '60's. Being raised in LA, I have countless lifelong friends who attended UCLA and not a single one has expressed anything but abject sadness and disappointment for UCLA's decision to join with USC to abandon the Pac-12. That said, it was clear that the decision came on the coattails of USC, based on $$$$ and motivated, in significant part, by the dire financial condition of UCLA's Athletic Department (dare I say, in your own words, "(They) mishandled (their) Athletic Department and it's finances"). This was conceived under the cloak of darkness and done, initially, without the advance knowledge and/or prior approval of the Board of Regents (BofR). Once it all came out and the furor ensued, the General Counsel of the BofR opined that the BofR could nix the deal. That's when the compromise was worked out: UCLA could leave but must pay Calimony to Cal in order to do so. That's not "socialism". It's the cost of doing business and, on balance, still a better deal than you deserved. UCLA and USC doomed the Pac-12 and their actions precipitated all that was to follow. Note to UCLA - Take your $45-$65 million, less Calimony, and stop complaining. Save your regrets (and apologies) for Oregon St and Washington St and their fans.
LOL....are you kidding me? Complaining....Cal supporters are the ones whining. They finally have to carry their own weight and can't stop crying about moving to a second tier conference. And I need to clear up some 'misinformation' you and other Cal supporters continue to spread.
First of all, UCLA's athletic department's debt wasn't due to any 'mishandling', it was the direct result of a global pandemic which stopped all of UCLA's revenue sources - ticket sales, media revenue, brand partnership revenue (i.e., Under Armour), etc. For the most recent academic year, the UCLA athletic department (via the ever so generous BofR) was given $60,000.00 in direct institutional support. In the same year Cal received over $20,000,000.00 in direct institutional support. So no one can fault the UCLA AD for not anticipating a global pandemic that killed practically all of it's revenue sources.
In addition, it was not a secret that both UCLA & USC AD's were interested in adding new members to the Pac-12 or to merge with another league to increase the exposure and competitiveness of their athletes, as well as create a larger stage to enhance future NIL opportunities (remember it was a former UCLA athlete who's lawsuit led to the NIL ruling). This was no secret. UCLA athletes shouldn't be punished for embracing the changes in college sports.
And like any other entity considering a merger or acquisition, the deal was not shared or published until it was signed and done. Why would they need to engage the BofR? The BofR has never had any type of oversight over UC athletes before why would they start now? Suddenly now the BofR wants to get involved? Where has their support been in the past?
The furor was over being left behind. The furor is over the fact that Cal has to now carry it's own weight, and it clearly is not able to do so. So like any other welfare recipient about to lose it's handout, it is grasping at whatever is nearby. Since UCLA & USC didn't violate any 'rule' or 'bylaw' of the Pac-12 Cal had no choice but to shakedown UCLA.
UCLA & USC didn't kill the Pac-12, the Pac-12 leadership or lack thereof did. Athletics has always been a big part of each school's culture, and they realized that in order to stay competitive and attract top athletes they needed to change too.
We'll see what the BofR decides when they meet next week. The circumstances around the agreement reached last December have changed. Cal has voluntarily chosen to leave the Pac-12 and move to a different conference for significantly less media revenue. And yet they still appear to expect a handout from UCLA to do so. As a former UCLA athlete myself, I hope and expect the Bruins to push back on that unfairness.
The Pandemic done it! Now that's funny LOL
The difference in overall direct institutional support is because Cal is the #1 public University in the would, whereas ucla is . . . not.