60 Comments

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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?.

Expand full comment

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.)

Expand full comment

As if good news from Knowlton or Christ would ever be expected . . .

Expand full comment

Pure political pandering from our lunkhead governor

Expand full comment

Would you rather he say nothing? You’re our lunkhead governor, what would you do and more importantly, what could you realistically do in this situation.

Expand full comment

This governor runs the 7th largest global economy and presides over 2 world class universities. His opinion should count and if he runs for president I might vote for him.

Expand full comment

I think it is important for him to weigh in and give his opinion on this situation. However, as you said, he runs the 7th largest global economy and a state with a population of 39 million, so Cal football and UCLA leaving the Pac12 for the Big10 is really low on his list of priorities and challenges facing Californians.

Expand full comment

Do you really think the governor "runs the economy"?

Expand full comment

No he doesn't directly but state governance is demanding in such a diverse, active and wealthy state compared to, say, West Virginia or Mississippi.

Expand full comment

Perfectly fair assessment.

Expand full comment

Maybe he could meet with his friends to discuss it maskless at the French Laundry while the rest of us are under statewide mask mandates. Or maybe he could meet them (with his security detail in tow) in Montana, even though it's one of 20+ states where CA gov't travel is banned. Maybe he could use his emergency powers (which he refuses to give up even though Covid hasn't been an emergent situation for many months now) to nix the BIG deal. I haven't liked him since he was mayor of SF and while married was caught sleeping with his best friend's (and campaign manager's) wife. The only thing I'll give him credit for is getting the ball rolling on legalizing gay marriage nationwide. He's always been a "rules for thee, not for me" kinda guy. As a D in a deep blue state, he has been the beneficiary of a compliant media that doesn't ask the tough questions or take him to task.

That stated, the point of my original comment wasn't that he's a lunkhead, it's that his public comments are pure political pandering, because there's really nothing he can do to change the BIG deal.

Expand full comment
Jul 20, 2022·edited Jul 21, 2022

I guess in your eyes, Newsom would be damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.

Newsom is too busy at the French Laundry, vacationing in Montana, drunk off his emergency powers to care enough or even notice what is happening to Cal!!

Heads I win, tails you lose type of guy.

Expand full comment

No, my point is he's an opportunist and political panderer. I'm an alum and have been a Cal fan for 40+ years. I want the school to excel academically and in sports competition. He's just trying to appease Cal fans without pissing off fans of the southern branch. Rather than tossing out meaningless platitudes about a ship that has already sailed, he needs to be taking meaningful action on issues like meeting with independent truckers at CA ports to try to resolve the ridiculous mess he and the super-majority Dems made by enacting AB5. This fustercluck is only exacerbating historically bad supply chain and inflationary pressures that hurt lowest income people the most.

Expand full comment

Rose Oski, But wait there’s more. He is a WEF Young Leadership Program graduate as well. The Director of WEF is Claus “You Will Own Nothing and Like It” Schwab.

Expand full comment

According to Wikipedia this isn’t true but Tom Cotton, Dan Crenshaw and Tulsi Gabbard all are listed as part of WEF.

Expand full comment

Pete Buttigeg (sp?) as well. Dr. Robert Malone, MD, UCD alumnus made this claim on one of his channels recently. That is where I learned about it.

Expand full comment

Yes, including EV Pete.

Do you believe the doctors claims about Newsom?

Expand full comment

That's simple. Instead of fake outrage, what about some plain talk: just say, 'you are extremely disappointed with their decision to disrupt ~100 years of west coast athletics, but there is nothing that the Regents or Legislature can do short of cutting (UCLA) next year's academic budget, which would only hurt the poor kids the most. In the meantime, I'll be working with the Cal Chancellor to understand better the impact on that campus."

Expand full comment

Wow, I feel a lot better now. I mean, when he is not running ads in Florida and pimping to be the next president, I am sure Senor Slick will make something good happen for the Cal Bears.

Expand full comment

Why are you so angry at Newsom?

Expand full comment

In the Wall Street Journal I trust. I read that paper and especially their outstanding editorials every day. They don't like Newsome, and nor do I. I may be one of the few conservatives on the Cal blog. LOL. (BTW, I don't like Trump, either).

Expand full comment

That’s fine but I don’t see how this is Newsoms fault. Christ and Knowlton are directly to blame since it is their direct job to look out for the best interest of all things Cal. Newsom is now going to have to step in and try to resolve this and really the only thing he can do is bail out our stadium debt with tax payer dollars or try to make ucla pay a portion of that debt with their Big10 money.

Expand full comment
RemovedJul 21, 2022·edited Jul 21, 2022
Comment removed
Expand full comment

This is so true . That’s why the football program needs to become independent from the AD and rent back their facilities .

The AD has been a disaster since Sandy Barbour’s incompetent tenure and there’s only so much Knowlton can do .

Expand full comment

Steve, You're aware that the Australian Ultra-Right, Reagan-ite Conservative Rupert Murdoch bought out Wall Street Journal back in '08 right?. The guy who made his first $Millions putting cable porn channels in hotel rooms and was called before Congress to explain Fox News meddling and false reporting during the Florida Pres. Elections of 2000... The W.S.J. lost much of its prestige & credibility at that point. At least it did for me...

Expand full comment

I am aware of that. But I don't think he has much of a hand in the editorial decisions of the newspaper. Their opinion pieces often take stands against the far right, and they clearly don't like the conceits of Donald Trump. The WSJ routinely allows liberal op eds to run in the paper. BTW, no one was forcing hotel patrons to subscribe to the porn channels when they were available. Even devout mormon hotel chain Marriott was offering them. FOMO, I guess.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

For me, all the big papers and mass media are compromised. The corporation that own them taint them. Also, the CIA openly gloats that it has agency inside all mass media now. Thi is how propaganda became ‘public relations’.... Check into Edward Bernais, my friend. A rabbit hole.

Expand full comment

I suggest not reading op-eds, no matter your political affiliation or the quality of the publication. Just read the actual reporting. You'll be better for it.

Expand full comment

I could not disagree any more. The editorials from the Wall Street journal are for the most part brilliant and well written. The paper is conservative, and they clearly do like the direction that Newsom is taking California in. But one of my all time favorites was a piece that thoroughly bashed Donald Trump for discouraging Republicans to vote in the Georgia senate run-off, thereby helping two Democrats to win and tip to the current 50-50 balance in the Senate that allows Kamala Harris to cast the deciding vote on reconciliation. Of Course Trump was saying their votes did not matter because it fit into his conspiracy theory narrative that the 2020 national election was stolen from him.

As for the actual reporting, I believe that several reporters from the New York Times are still holding on to their Pulitzers for their now thoroughly discredited coverage of the Russia collusion hoax.

Expand full comment

hahahaha, man are you ever clueless, trump was not only helped by the Russians, tried to screw the the Ukanians, but also pardoned his crew that colluded with the Russians - read the actual news, not just the moron opinions on WSJ

Expand full comment
RemovedJul 21, 2022·edited Jul 21, 2022
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Bob, you’re better off sticking to reading Wikipedia than reading the WSJ.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

I don’t care about that marshmallow baby man.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

The WSJ is owned by Rubert Murdoch so your claims of it being the least unbiased are completely wrong.

Expand full comment

He won't block the move even if he could because of the money. But getting mad publicly and working to strongarm more cash (via a Cal move or other financial compensation) seems like a good political position. The challenge is that he has zero leverage over USC, which is what the B1G REALLY wants so there's not a ton of leverage. His 2 best options would be to somehow poison the UCLA move financially (to extract more cash) or make them take Cal along for the ride.

Expand full comment

Probably not, but he could request some sort of subvention from UCLA's new wealth to Cal. I'm not sure what the posturing does for him politically if he doesn't find a way to say he at least got some outcome.

Expand full comment

Exactly. He only has potential direct leverage on UCLA. He'd have to be careful about how much to exert on USC and B1G (indirectly) without achieving a worst case scenario where both UCs are left in the cold. With the media deals all to be negotiated, extracting more dollars for a bigger pie is still on the table (especial with Fox and ESPN competing).

Best I can tell, his options are 1) siphon off UCLA's new money to pay Cal's debts or 2) get B1G to accept us and maybe Furd so the whole state (Pac-wise) is packaged together.

Expand full comment

Bruins are burning cash. Not sure they'll have any largesse to spread around w/o large cuts to their program.

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sports/big-ten-cash-infusion-ucla-athletics-department-built-102-8-million-budget-deficit-in-recent-years-per-report/

Expand full comment

Disagree that he has leverage over UCLA, other than the bully pulpit. No way he'd touch the academic funding from the state.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

I think it gives a heart but it doesn't become visible to the giver without a refresh. That's the bug I've seen, at least.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

When I refresh/revisit the page I see the heart marked. Could be a different situation from what you describe, though.

Expand full comment

Politics, sure.

But he has a point.

Don't know if it will materialize into a TV contract, though.

Expand full comment

Well, if they already started investigation within minutes of reading the newspaper, it's been two weeks and nothing really happened. Unless Newsom just read about it this week.... either way whichever case it is, not much to expect from UC Regents.

Expand full comment

The problem of course is there is no way to make the same case (or any case) for Cal to be included in the B1G that there is for UCLA, which delivers a much larger audience, and is implicit in delivering an even larger one because they are coupled with USC.

Expand full comment

IMO, this is faux outrage. The ONLY reason Newsom would care is that the State is ultimately on the hook if Cal football defaults on its stadium bonds, and no way he wants a hint of that during a possible run for a promotion.

Expand full comment

Well yeah, that's exactly the reason. Exactly why so many people were surprised that UCLA was able to make this move without consulting Cal.

Expand full comment

They probably told Knowlton about it. Unfortunately Knowlton probably thought it was a joke and didn't do anything about it.

Expand full comment

The make-good should be that they trade us Mick Cronin for Mark Fox.

Expand full comment

why should they have consulted Cal? Apparently, they informed Prez Drake of the confidential negotiations, so they fulfilled their responsibility to the UC system. If Drake did not inform any Regents (or Chancellor Christ), that's on him. Definitely not saying he should have informed either, however. (Once he informed a Regent or politico, leaks were bound to happens, which might have killed the deal...)

Expand full comment

That's what UCLA says. Now we'll see what the other Regents and other state leaders think about being left in the dark.

Expand full comment

yeah, but why would UCLA lie about something as straightforward as informing Drake? If un-true, all the Prez has to do is to refute their claim, which to my knowledge, he has not done.

Expand full comment

That seems like a good enough reason frankly.

Expand full comment

Yeah, of course it is about the money, why else should or would he care about ucla leaving for the Big10 and Cal being left behind if money wasn’t involved.

Expand full comment

If Gavin Nuisance somehow corrects things in Cal's favor, he'll have my vote for whatever he runs for.

Expand full comment
Jul 21, 2022·edited Jul 21, 2022

Article. Newsom showed up at the regents meeting in SF yesterday.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-20/newsom-demands-ucla-explain-pac-12-exit

Expand full comment

I am happy to hear that it at least made his radar screen. So how has UCLA Athletic Program run up $102M in debt, by the way? What is the total debt picture for these facility improvement programs? What would it take for UC to consider a debt restucturing program to hopefully prevent disruptive events like these from occuring in the first place? If Cal or Stanford jump to another Conference, the Pac-10 will be ruined and this could bring 'unkown unknowns' to quote the late Donald Rumsfeld. Major donors, alumni and corporate, may decide to reduce or end their support. Live attendance at home games may also drop off considerably. It also seems that nobody has bothered to ask the Student Athletes, (who play mostly on a voluntary basis) what they want. They are not in servitude to their respective schools, afaik.

Expand full comment