|
Post by taxidea on Dec 15, 2022 2:06:35 GMT -5
There is dispute about whether such authority actually was delegated. If it really had been delegated, then there would be no need for a vote. However, news reports are that (despite a majority of the feedback from UCLA athletes being opposed to the deal), the Regents have decided it can go forward. Well, holding hearings and voting to allow it to go forward could primarily be a face saving exercise. It doesn't necessarily mean they had the authority to block it. This way we don't have to find out and everybody gets something out of it. I think this is the tea. I'm convinced that none of this back end drama became necessary until the governor took issue with the move, many days later. I actually posted my doubts about the deal coming to fruition, now that the gov suddenly inserted himself with the predictable "what's in it for me" shtick. Though obviously now, a several million dollar show payment has interestingly done the trick, and for better or worse, the B1G wins the LA market and UCLA gets the bag.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 15, 2022 2:31:36 GMT -5
Well, holding hearings and voting to allow it to go forward could primarily be a face saving exercise. It doesn't necessarily mean they had the authority to block it. This way we don't have to find out and everybody gets something out of it. I think this is the tea. I'm convinced that none of this back end drama became necessary until the governor took issue with the move, many days later. I actually posted my doubts about the deal coming to fruition, now that the gov suddenly inserted himself with the predictable "what's in it for me" shtick. Though obviously now, a several million dollar show payment has interestingly done the trick, and for better or worse, the B1G wins the LA market and UCLA gets the bag. They laid the groundwork for it, but it’s not settled that UCLA will actually have to pay anything. After the dust settles, I’ll be very surprised if they actually do. Individual campus autonomy has been a hallmark of the UC, and the “Berkeley tax” very much goes against that idea.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Dec 15, 2022 10:11:36 GMT -5
Someone took offense that the article mentioned my use of U.C.L.A. rather than UCLA.
Usually I would ignore it, but in the spirit of the season, I changed it.
I got the subject from the news story, so take it up with the NYT too.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Dec 15, 2022 11:19:06 GMT -5
Yes. Literally in the same sentence. The one talking about Olympic sports jamborees and the transportation to them. There’s a comma before the and, so they aren’t compound. Regardless, it was UCLA that threw out the idea of shared travel, most likely to appease the Regents before the vote (and USC hasn’t made any public statements about it as far as I know). In all likelihood, it’s probably a bad idea for them to travel together. They are rivals, and don’t particularly like each other, and just because they joined together as partners in crime for this move, it doesn’t mean that those feelings will change. They might share travel for something like the conference track meet, but I doubt it for any team sport contest. They almost certainly won't be playing in the same location on the same day, so coordination could be a giant pain and likely the savings aren't that much.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Dec 15, 2022 11:19:49 GMT -5
there's an 'easy' way for UCLA to pay a Cal 'tax'.
they simply create an agreement to continue to schedule them yearly across sports, and pay Cal to play them. It will not even be a 'tax'.
500k for a football, game, 250k for a basketball game, and so on
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Dec 15, 2022 13:45:43 GMT -5
Yes. Literally in the same sentence. The one talking about Olympic sports jamborees and the transportation to them. There’s a comma before the and, so they aren’t compound. Regardless, it was UCLA that threw out the idea of shared travel, most likely to appease the Regents before the vote (and USC hasn’t made any public statements about it as far as I know). In all likelihood, it’s probably a bad idea for them to travel together. They are rivals, and don’t particularly like each other, and just because they joined together as partners in crime for this move, it doesn’t mean that those feelings will change. When they say shared travel we think that means UCLA and USC? Not UCLA volleyball, soccer and Tennis on the same plane?
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Dec 15, 2022 13:51:13 GMT -5
Berkeley should be embarrassed agreeing to take a handout from another school and not having to do a single thing to actually earn it. Whatever happened to standing on your own 2 feet? Are you familiar with the recent financial history or Cal Athletics? They are still learning to stand on their own 2 feet.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,440
|
Post by bluepenquin on Dec 15, 2022 13:54:37 GMT -5
Spinning their wheels for 5 months is not unprecedented. I don't live in California, but I'd prefer to have a Board of Regents spend a few months examining this deal rather than some AD and/or college president make such an important decision without more input from a wide range of stakeholders. This is not a case where an AD ordered a new brand of cleaning supplies. I agree with this. The decision should rest with the regents or state and not the AD or President, and they s/b looking for best interest of the state's higher education.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 15, 2022 13:56:47 GMT -5
There’s a comma before the and, so they aren’t compound. Regardless, it was UCLA that threw out the idea of shared travel, most likely to appease the Regents before the vote (and USC hasn’t made any public statements about it as far as I know). In all likelihood, it’s probably a bad idea for them to travel together. They are rivals, and don’t particularly like each other, and just because they joined together as partners in crime for this move, it doesn’t mean that those feelings will change. When they say shared travel we think that means UCLA and USC? Not UCLA volleyball, soccer and Tennis on the same plane? UCLA explicity raised that possibility in their response to the Regents: UCLA intends to mitigate the travel impact on student-athletes by increasing access to charter flights and minimizing the number of days spent away from campus. After conducting a detailed cost estimate of charter flights to Big Ten schools, calculating the number of additional charter flights needed for each team and days spent away from campus, UCLA estimates that it will spend between $4.62 and $5.79 million per year on increased travel expenses. These costs may be significantly reduced through efficiencies such as neutral site tournaments, shared flights between UCLA teams and USC teams, and other accommodations that can further reduce travel and travel costs to the Midwest and East Coast. www.outkick.com/ucla-usc-shared-flights-proposal-big-ten/(I couldn't find the attachment of UCLA's response, so I used this reference instead) Again, I think they were looking for ways to appease the Regents, so I think now that the move has been approved, they will take a more serious look at that idea.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Dec 15, 2022 14:11:30 GMT -5
Berkeley should be embarrassed agreeing to take a handout from another school and not having to do a single thing to actually earn it. Whatever happened to standing on your own 2 feet? Are you familiar with the recent financial history or Cal Athletics? They are still learning to stand on their own 2 feet. Cal athletics had a $3.5 million budget surplus at the end of the 2021 fiscal year (about the same as 2020), as compared to the $60 million deficit UCLA ran up in the same period. Moving most of the annual debt service for the stadium reno out of the athletic department budget a few years ago - combined with a successful multi-year fundraising campaign and a reduction in expenses (like Sonny Dykes' contract payments expiring) - has dramatically changed Cal's outlook. Cal's products on the field/court are largely a mess, but surprisingly their finances are not. For the time being, at least.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Dec 15, 2022 14:23:26 GMT -5
Are you familiar with the recent financial history or Cal Athletics? They are still learning to stand on their own 2 feet. Cal athletics had a $3.5 million budget surplus at the end of the 2021 fiscal year (about the same as 2020), as compared to the $60 million deficit UCLA ran up in the same period. Moving most of the annual debt service for the stadium reno out of the athletic department budget a few years ago - combined with a successful multi-year fundraising campaign - has dramatically changed Cal's outlook. Cal's products on the field/court are largely a mess, but surprisingly their finances are not. The post I was replying to was saying wouldn't Cal prefer to stand on their own two feet. I was pointing out that for the last couple of decades (recent history) Cal athletics has done very little standing on it's own two feet. They benefitted from large bailouts in 1999, 2007, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 which would suggest they would not be embarrassed by getting free money because they do it on a regular basis. They did ok last year? Great! They also ran a $3 million surplus the year before... with $25 million in university support. I see no reason they wouldn't take UCLAs money.
|
|
|
Post by staticb on Dec 15, 2022 14:25:21 GMT -5
This may actually help Robyn and the Wahine Team in scheduling B1G teams in the pre-conference season. Thinking B1G teams will want to make a long distance trip prior to their Conference schedule, so that the players get use to it. Thinking it will also impact the so called B1G vs PAC12 challenge they hold pre-conference. B1G teams would rather schedule a higher RPI team then some of the remaining PAC12 teams. That is were Hawaii would quite possibly come into play. It drastically reduces the chances of USC/UCLA being on Hawaii's schedule every year. Now they are going to want to stay local for OOC. (But maybe you can get a few B1G who want to swing out that way after visiting USC/UCLA in other sports)
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Dec 15, 2022 14:26:49 GMT -5
When they say shared travel we think that means UCLA and USC? Not UCLA volleyball, soccer and Tennis on the same plane? UCLA explicity raised that possibility in their response to the Regents: UCLA intends to mitigate the travel impact on student-athletes by increasing access to charter flights and minimizing the number of days spent away from campus. After conducting a detailed cost estimate of charter flights to Big Ten schools, calculating the number of additional charter flights needed for each team and days spent away from campus, UCLA estimates that it will spend between $4.62 and $5.79 million per year on increased travel expenses. These costs may be significantly reduced through efficiencies such as neutral site tournaments, shared flights between UCLA teams and USC teams, and other accommodations that can further reduce travel and travel costs to the Midwest and East Coast. www.outkick.com/ucla-usc-shared-flights-proposal-big-ten/(I couldn't find the attachment of UCLA's response, so I used this reference instead) Again, I think they were looking for ways to appease the Regents, so I think now that the move has been approved, they will take a more serious look at that idea. Wow, yeah I don't see that working out so well. I think they could easily put the golf team on the volleyball plane if the big 10 schedules that way, but I don't know about hitching a ride with USC.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Dec 15, 2022 14:44:01 GMT -5
Well, holding hearings and voting to allow it to go forward could primarily be a face saving exercise. It doesn't necessarily mean they had the authority to block it. This way we don't have to find out and everybody gets something out of it. I think this is the tea. I'm convinced that none of this back end drama became necessary until the governor took issue with the move, many days later. I actually posted my doubts about the deal coming to fruition, now that the gov suddenly inserted himself with the predictable "what's in it for me" shtick. Though obviously now, a several million dollar show payment has interestingly done the trick, and for better or worse, the B1G wins the LA market and UCLA gets the bag. Nah. Newsom has limited influence as an ex oficio member of the board, and while he was vocal about oversight, the Regents were always going to take a hard look at it anyway. There were a lot of dynamics in play, some of them a bit arcane involving internal politics and hierarchies within the board, some of them quite important - such as the limits of power and/or autonomy granted to an individual institution within the larger framework of the UC system. While I don't necessarily think the Regent's decision to not block the move was always a fait accompli - there's a lot of animosity towards Gene Block (UCLA prez), despite his reportedly profuse apologies to other presidents, and that could have potentially affected how things played out - it was always the most logical move from a financial and (probably )legal perspective. It also staves off the public relations disaster of a flagship university having to cut about half of its sports due to an out-of-control deficit.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Dec 15, 2022 15:07:30 GMT -5
Cal athletics had a $3.5 million budget surplus at the end of the 2021 fiscal year (about the same as 2020), as compared to the $60 million deficit UCLA ran up in the same period. Moving most of the annual debt service for the stadium reno out of the athletic department budget a few years ago - combined with a successful multi-year fundraising campaign - has dramatically changed Cal's outlook. Cal's products on the field/court are largely a mess, but surprisingly their finances are not. The post I was replying to was saying wouldn't Cal prefer to stand on their own two feet. I was pointing out that for the last couple of decades (recent history) Cal athletics has done very little standing on it's own two feet. They benefitted from large bailouts in 1999, 2007, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 which would suggest they would not be embarrassed by getting free money because they do it on a regular basis. They did ok last year? Great! They also ran a $3 million surplus the year before... with $25 million in university support. I see no reason they wouldn't take UCLAs money. I certainly agree with your last sentence, as the idea of Cal - or any other athletic department - being "embarrassed" by, say, a $5 million check is farcical. I was clarifying your comment about Cal's current finances, as I have a certain amount of insight there, I guess you could say. Anyway, my point is that changes in the athletic department within the overall UC financial reporting structure, along with around $250 million earmarked for athletics as part of a successful campus-wide $6 billion fundraising campaign, have changed the narrative - for now. The future is currently more uncertain, of course, which circles us back around to Cal accepting payments from UCLA - of course they would. Now, if we could only start winning some !!!!###$$$!!!ing games...
|
|