Just seems wrong that two schools, in their own selfish interests, can destabilize the finances of so many other programs (and their local economic impact). There needs to be some sort of rules in place to control this sort of nonsense.
Just seems wrong that two schools, in their own selfish interests, can destabilize the finances of so many other programs (and their local economic impact). There needs to be some sort of rules in place to control this sort of nonsense.
Why should USC and UCLA be obligated to subsidize the athletic budgets of Cal and the other nine remaining Pac-12 schools? Both LA schools have now given advance notice that the "subsidies" will end in two years. Fair enough. The remaining ten schools need to either find new benefactors or figure out how to live within their means.
To say that UCLA and USC are somehow 'subsidizing' Cal's Athletic Program, simply by remaining in the PAC-12, when they could be earning more in BiG-10... Well... You're getting into that zone of misdeed rationalization. You know, the same one that the banksters like M.Miliken, former Enron exec. Skilling, et al, P. Pritzker or B. Made-Off used: 'If we hadn't done it, Someone else would have...'. Implying that a potentially lost opportunity for profits somehow made it O.K. Just because a more lucrative 'Ad-Buy' market exists, That doesn't automatically mean USC and UCLA are stupid or mistaken for not joining it. Sometimes it isn't about the money... Its about doing what is Right for the Western Region and Collegiate Athletic Tradition. Apparently they don't discuss such things @ UCLA or USC any longer. Why am I not surprised?.
UCLA and USC are collectively valued by the market at $200M per year -- probably $150M is attributable to USC and an additional $50M is UCLA. The other ten Pac-12 teams are collectively valued at $300M. The value of the conference takes an enormous hit when USC is removed from the equation which, by default, means USC is subsidizing the other teams' athletic programs.
USC decided that they wanted to compete at the highest levels of athletic competition and they made it possible for UCLA to do the same. Cal and every other Pac-12 team would have accepted an invitation to the Big Ten, too. (It is noteworthy to me that neither Cal nor Stanford are publicly criticizing USC and UCLA. I suspect that it is because they know that they are the only remaining Pac-12 teams that USC and UCLA would be happy to have join them in the Big Ten and they hoping that USC and UCLA can pave the road for them to join in the future.)
Just seems wrong that two schools, in their own selfish interests, can destabilize the finances of so many other programs (and their local economic impact). There needs to be some sort of rules in place to control this sort of nonsense.
Why should USC and UCLA be obligated to subsidize the athletic budgets of Cal and the other nine remaining Pac-12 schools? Both LA schools have now given advance notice that the "subsidies" will end in two years. Fair enough. The remaining ten schools need to either find new benefactors or figure out how to live within their means.
To say that UCLA and USC are somehow 'subsidizing' Cal's Athletic Program, simply by remaining in the PAC-12, when they could be earning more in BiG-10... Well... You're getting into that zone of misdeed rationalization. You know, the same one that the banksters like M.Miliken, former Enron exec. Skilling, et al, P. Pritzker or B. Made-Off used: 'If we hadn't done it, Someone else would have...'. Implying that a potentially lost opportunity for profits somehow made it O.K. Just because a more lucrative 'Ad-Buy' market exists, That doesn't automatically mean USC and UCLA are stupid or mistaken for not joining it. Sometimes it isn't about the money... Its about doing what is Right for the Western Region and Collegiate Athletic Tradition. Apparently they don't discuss such things @ UCLA or USC any longer. Why am I not surprised?.
UCLA and USC are collectively valued by the market at $200M per year -- probably $150M is attributable to USC and an additional $50M is UCLA. The other ten Pac-12 teams are collectively valued at $300M. The value of the conference takes an enormous hit when USC is removed from the equation which, by default, means USC is subsidizing the other teams' athletic programs.
USC decided that they wanted to compete at the highest levels of athletic competition and they made it possible for UCLA to do the same. Cal and every other Pac-12 team would have accepted an invitation to the Big Ten, too. (It is noteworthy to me that neither Cal nor Stanford are publicly criticizing USC and UCLA. I suspect that it is because they know that they are the only remaining Pac-12 teams that USC and UCLA would be happy to have join them in the Big Ten and they hoping that USC and UCLA can pave the road for them to join in the future.)