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 …
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.
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.