If Cal doesn’t want to invest in its sports, then why should we (either financially or emotionally)? Feels more like a toxic relationship that we convince ourselves to stay in for *reasons*
If Cal doesn’t want to invest in its sports, then why should we (either financially or emotionally)? Feels more like a toxic relationship that we convince ourselves to stay in for *reasons*
You’re right. You don’t need to be. I’m not disagreeing that we can’t or shouldn’t be stellar. Just being realistic. But I disagree that the only outcomes are two extreme ones.
But doesn’t the middle path of remaining mediocre lead to the same outcome as shutting down the program (just after burning $Ms)?
Status quo means we will hemorrhage money for the next 7 years while in the ACC without meaningfully growing our revenue base. The ensuing growth in the budget deficit will lead to a Regents’ decision re: keeping Cal Athletics and I would wager ends our D1 participation to save on costs.
Burning money would be abandoning the only plausible way to cut into a half billion $ in stadium debt that doesn’t otherwise fall to students and academic programs. I’d like Cal to have a top shelf athletics program like Oregon too, but I don’t also agree that’s the only alternative to a U of Chicago model.
I haven’t seen the covenants for the stadium financing, so take my following Q with a grain of salt: If cal abandons its football program, why couldn’t Cal just pass the debt refinancing to the state to eat? A sub-D1 team could play at Edward’s while the state took full possession of CMS. Not saying I like the idea but why can’t we get shed the stadium if we don’t need it
I'm not sure how would that work? Cal says it's dropping football and the Regents say, no you have to keep it? Or, the Regents say, fine, cut every sport too? Regardless, the fact is that the Regents (ask taxpayers) are on the hook for the debt if Cal drops FB. (Or, are you suggesting the state takes it out of the academic funding, which is what really goes into the classroom?)
Not saying Cal can't drop football if it wants to, but the state doesn't also have to pick up the tab for whatever portion of the stadium debt athletics would no longer contribute to. In all likelihood they would cover some depending on the circumstances, but I'd suspect much more would need to be cut out of the existing budget or deferred or re-financed so that we would essentially be paying off till the end of time. In any case, the state choose any solution they want, but it for no scenario would involve the state just paying for it.
The Athletic Department signed for the CMS debt, but if football is dropped, the Athletic Department will lose its cash cow. Besides cutting most of teh AD staff, the only sports remaining will be those that the campus wants to fund out of General Revenues. The AD will not be able to pay bond debt without football; if the campus eliminates all varsity sports, teh AD will cease to exist. The Regents will have no choice but assume the bonds, using some CaliMoney from UCLA. Cutting education money to the campus is a non-starter, as that will hurt the low income and first gen the most.
As a younger blue, I don’t understand why.
If Cal doesn’t want to invest in its sports, then why should we (either financially or emotionally)? Feels more like a toxic relationship that we convince ourselves to stay in for *reasons*
You’re right. You don’t need to be. I’m not disagreeing that we can’t or shouldn’t be stellar. Just being realistic. But I disagree that the only outcomes are two extreme ones.
But doesn’t the middle path of remaining mediocre lead to the same outcome as shutting down the program (just after burning $Ms)?
Status quo means we will hemorrhage money for the next 7 years while in the ACC without meaningfully growing our revenue base. The ensuing growth in the budget deficit will lead to a Regents’ decision re: keeping Cal Athletics and I would wager ends our D1 participation to save on costs.
Burning money would be abandoning the only plausible way to cut into a half billion $ in stadium debt that doesn’t otherwise fall to students and academic programs. I’d like Cal to have a top shelf athletics program like Oregon too, but I don’t also agree that’s the only alternative to a U of Chicago model.
I haven’t seen the covenants for the stadium financing, so take my following Q with a grain of salt: If cal abandons its football program, why couldn’t Cal just pass the debt refinancing to the state to eat? A sub-D1 team could play at Edward’s while the state took full possession of CMS. Not saying I like the idea but why can’t we get shed the stadium if we don’t need it
Because the state can just say no.
I'm not sure how would that work? Cal says it's dropping football and the Regents say, no you have to keep it? Or, the Regents say, fine, cut every sport too? Regardless, the fact is that the Regents (ask taxpayers) are on the hook for the debt if Cal drops FB. (Or, are you suggesting the state takes it out of the academic funding, which is what really goes into the classroom?)
Not saying Cal can't drop football if it wants to, but the state doesn't also have to pick up the tab for whatever portion of the stadium debt athletics would no longer contribute to. In all likelihood they would cover some depending on the circumstances, but I'd suspect much more would need to be cut out of the existing budget or deferred or re-financed so that we would essentially be paying off till the end of time. In any case, the state choose any solution they want, but it for no scenario would involve the state just paying for it.
right, and that is my point. Let's play this out.
The Athletic Department signed for the CMS debt, but if football is dropped, the Athletic Department will lose its cash cow. Besides cutting most of teh AD staff, the only sports remaining will be those that the campus wants to fund out of General Revenues. The AD will not be able to pay bond debt without football; if the campus eliminates all varsity sports, teh AD will cease to exist. The Regents will have no choice but assume the bonds, using some CaliMoney from UCLA. Cutting education money to the campus is a non-starter, as that will hurt the low income and first gen the most.