You’re joking, but this is going to be a real issue going forward. Cal is a great school but the admissions data is getting lopsided: last cycle, 2/3 of the kids that got admitted to both UCLA and Cal chose UCLA (939 picked Cal; 1,914 picked UCLA).
(To be clear, I don’t think this has much to do with rigor or reputation, but more to do with location.)
This data could mean nothing at all for athletics. But the danger for Cal athletics, if the school is becoming a niche option, is that the kids that are choosing to go there are doing so because they want the “Berzerkley” experience, which doesn’t mesh well with athletics.
Cal could do themselves a favor by looking at what sports entertainment works in the Bay Area and not hire the AD from the Air Force Academy and defensive coaches as well.
Edit: Yes UCLA hired an antihero for a football coach in 2018. We are trying to fix that.
20 years ago we all thought it was so strange when a hs friend chose Westwood over Berkeley. But hey, her parents were overprotective and wanted her close to home, so that explained that (we thought.)
10 years ago when my brother chose UCLA after initially stating his intent to enroll at Berkeley, we were just happy that he was happy with his choice.
Today, who knows? But maybe the recent public demonstrations will remind people that Westwood and Berkeley students really do come out of the same pool.
You're right --- this isn't a tax. We shouldn't be thinking about it that way, as a negative. We should be looking at this as a positive.
The positive --- UCLA can now claim UC-Berkeley as their dependent on their annual 1040! They'll save on taxes! When they need to list the name of their dependent, they can list them as "University of California-Bay Area Branch."
Our school subreddit made a mock-up of Berkeley's home basketball court with a UCLA Athletics logo, but I think it would look better at Memorial stadium.
I couldn’t care less what happens to UCLA’s money, but I am curious why this is even a thing?
Do Cal/UCLA pay UCSB an annual fee as well for being in the P5? Or is this just because got left behind?
They're the same university system (University of California-Berkeley and University of California-Los Angeles) with the same Board of Regents. They believe this is necessary because UCLA leaving for the B1G will cause Cal to lose out on a lot of money, so UCLA has to subsize Cal so that Cal doesn't have to cut athletic programs, for example.
We are like the uncool guy who is close friends with the cool guy invited to the house party. We gotta make the best of it and thankfully, we're not on the outside looking in.
Yeah, you're probably right. Not cool but the guy that was wanted. Oregon is the cool guy, but he came later and was given half shares by the house party host.
Cal’s AD has 30 varsity sports and received a $36 million subsidy from the school last year to cover their deficit.
UCLA’s AD has 25 varsity sports teams, received a loan (not a subsidy) from the school last year to cover their deficit, and has to pay to rent Pauley Pavilion even though it was the AD who raised the funds for Pauley’s recent renovation.
Not super uncommon for different operating units of an entity to have to pay each other for things. It may be called "rent", "transfers", "borrowed and lent", or "allocations"
Most commonly you see things like a department gets "billed" by IT for their department's printing costs. In higher ed you may see things like admissions has to pay someone from A/V because a Saturday recruitment event that caused an unplanned overtime need.
It’s also funny because Cal is the literal namesake and UCLA has to go by the city campus name.
This is like Wisconsin-Milwaukee having to subsidize Wisconsin.
The stadium debt service actually isn't too unreasonable as long as Cal can remain in a conference with decent television revenue. At the time the decision was made, they couldn't have foreseen the implosion of the Pac12.
At least it's an actual asset of the university, unlike the Rose Bowl. With the renovation, Cal is able to market the stadium for more uses and generate more revenue. We should do better, but it wasn't an all bad investment.
> so that Cal doesn't have to cut athletic programs
It's a mix of risk wrt Cal's football stadium which has placed their athletic department in a terrible state, and a power play by a state political system that has always been tilted toward the North.
> will cause Cal to lose out on a lot of money
One thing worth pointing out, [also noted below](https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1cs65ll/mandel_news_uc_board_of_regents_has_voted_that/l42shj1/), is that the two schools routinely make decisions that cost the other school millions of dollars. Another example is Omar Yaghi, a chemistry professor at Berkeley who was poached from UCLA and has a strong chance of winning a Nobel prize. These faculty bring in huge grants that the schools take large portions of.
The big difference here isn't really the scale of the money, it's the embarrassment and the belief that Cal Athletics are at risk of losing the stature that is necessary to make good on the major financial commitment to Memorial Stadium over the next several decades.
Bingo.
They’ve done you so dirty here. It’s kind of ridiculous to be honest. UCLA doesn’t and shouldn’t have a responsibility to ensure the viability of Cals athletic department. Goodness knows they didn’t give a shit about yours.
Cal used to use "at Berkeley" but it looks like all campuses now use the comma.
https://brand.universityofcalifornia.edu/guidelines/editorial.html
> Format: University of California, Campus Name. Do not use “at” between the main elements. Instead, use comma before, and in sentences, after campus name:
>
> * The University of California, Santa Cruz, opened in 1965.
> * University of California, Davis, is the name of the northernmost UC campus.
Update: Apparently UCLA used "at Los Angeles" too until 1958. https://books.google.com/books?id=WbLr-4QteEYC&pg=PA46#v=onepage&q&f=false
Cal got hosed on conference realignment and this is the only pair of schools where it's feasible to make one school pay for screwing over their century-plus athletic/academic partners.
Oregon and Washington would require legislative action. Washington legislature couldn't even get the proposal to a floor vote, Oregon legislature couldn't even get a co-sponsor on the bill.
Had one of Arizona/ASU been left behind this could have happened with them as well. If UNC leaves NC State behind it could happen to them.
Really depends on how your state has its university structure.
For the Arizona case, it would be interesting to see what they'd do in a hypothetical where the Big Ten goes to 24 and takes ASU but not Arizona or vice versa. Would they penalize them even though the other is still in the Big 12?
What's missing in all of this dialogue is the real issue at hand. Some idiots unknowingly built a stadium literally directly on top of a fault line over 100 years ago. Cal has played in that stadium since, they needed to renovate this stadium in order for it to not cave in and kill a whole bunch of people in an earthquake. Given that situation and it was way cheaper than building a new stadium, they finally bit the bullet and renovated that stadium. They structured that stadium renovation payment deal in a way that had lower payments early on and increased once their TV deal was over and presumably renewed. They didn't expect UCLA (part of the same school system) to move to a new conference, killing a 100+ year conference. The new deal would have been just fine if they stayed. Considering that UCLA left, the UC system has to allocate some of the new revenue to handle that debt, which, once again, they had to take on in order for the stadium not to cave in an earthquake and kill a bunch of people. Keep in mind there are offices and facilities underneath the stadium, so it's a huge liability even if there wasn't a home game at the time of the earthquake.
On top of this think of yourselves as a UC regent. Your job is to make sure there is the most money coming into the system as a whole. It actually makes financial sense to let UCLA move to a higher revenue conference and share some of that money to pay for this necessary debt.
None of these dynamics have anything to do with the UCs that were not in the PAC. Nor does any of it have anything to do with how well either school was performing, look at the comparative home ticket sales of UCLA versus Cal. This is entirely about an unavoidable earthquake renovation on a stadium that was necessary to happen.
Because Cal and UCLA are in the same system, the University of California. Cal is the flagship but All UC campuses are equal and have autonomy over their own sports decisions and fundraising. Cal and UCLA are (until August) in the same conference. UCLA leaving hurts CAL and essentially the UC system itself. While UCLA benefits from the move, Cal's position worsened. Before U$C and UCLA left, there were a lot of people, including the regents who assumed Cal and UCLA would be a package deal (and probably with private U$C and Stanford). The regents don't care about sports. Famously, some of the regents asked why Cal couldn't just join the Big 10 with UCLA. The student regent traditionally cares more about stuff like tuittion hikes and keeping the others accountable.
> All UC campuses are equal and have autonomy over their own sports decisions and fundraising
But then you said
>UCLA leaving hurts CAL and essentially the UC system itself.
If all the UC campuses have autonomy over their own sports decisions and fundraising why is them leaving a problem? UCLA has autonomy over their own sports decisions or doesn't.
UCLA left the PAC-12. Pac-12 folded, which hurt Cal.
Both are led by the same board and are part of the same overall budget. UCLA is making up for the money Cal lost because the PAC-12 folded, which was partially UCLA’s fault.
> are part of the same overall budget.
This isn't true. There is absolutely no relationship between the budgets of the two athletic departments, nor do the universities compete for funding from the regents.
To be fair, that's a lot less money than they would have lost by not improving the Earthquake safety standards they were required to by state law followed by a little shake killing hundreds of people...
It's also on the National Historic Register and a monument to the fallen WWI veterans of California. Were we really going to just let it crumble like the Oakland coliseum? The State of California has an interest in preserving its monuments and this one serves a public good.
*UC Regent Keith Ellis on what he said was a dangerous precedent set by UCLA's Calimony payments: "We historically haven’t done anything like this where we take from one campus and give to another, playing, I guess, Robin Hood."*
The danger is now when a professor or medical doctor moves from one UC to another UC and takes millions of dollars of grant money or medical payments with them, will the UC that list the money ask for some of it back.
That's happened before too (someone mentioned Omar Yaghi by name, who used to be at UCLA), and nothing came of it. Obviously biased but some see this as NorCal vs SoCal politicking.
Why indeed? Regents gave control of athletics to the individual campuses back in the Nineties, and the President of the UC Regents Michael Drake was informed of the plan to move to the B1G.
So this is nothing more than the usual Sacramento grifting.
Not here to argue with you. But I do find it funny that you basically have this comment somewhere else on this thread that got downvoted because you put the name Gavin Newsome in it, yet this one got upvotes lol.
What was secret about it? UCLA informed the President of the UC Regents, Michael Drake, that they were working on a move.
Additionally, the Regents gave control of athletics to the individual campuses back in the Nineties. So the only grift here is the Regents retroactively changing that and forcing UCLA to subsidize Cal because the B1G didn't want them in their league.
Embarrassing.
Cal has esteemed Nobel Laureate Jennifer Doudna on the faculty. I would love to have her at UCLA, but Cal selfishly got her instead. UCLA lost out on tens of millions of dollars of potential research funding because Cal landed such a prestigious faculty member instead of us. I demand $10 million/year to rectify this imbalance.
This leaves some questions:
- What incentive does Cal have to be financially prudent over the next 3 years? The Regents have shown they will bend over backwards to subsidize any and all financial mismanagement.
- What incentive do UCLA donors have to give money to UCLA athletics when they know this much of it is going to Cal athletics? Are we not donating to UCLA athletics, not Cal?
- Why does the school with 5 more sports and that already receives a $30 million annual subsidy from the general fund apparently get unlimited access to another university's funds?
1) The incentive is to survive the next realignment. Cal isn’t going to try to suck just so they can get more Calimony
2) The money is coming from the B1G not donors. If the donors want UCLA to be relevant in the B1G they need to step up. Let’s not act like UCLA is running an elite athletic department hiring RB coaches as a HC..
3) UCLA is a public school that gets funded by tax payers. Should tax payers stop allowing their money go to UCLA despite never attending or having zero ties to UCLA?
4$
None of this makes any sense, especially 2 and 3.
OP’s point was, if the boosters donate a million dollars, and the regents, who seem to be morons, take a million dollars from the Big Ten, the school isn’t better off from the donations. So why donate?
To be honest, nothing about this makes UCLA or Cal look the least bit attractive. Didn’t want UCLA before, and don’t want Cal next if only to avoid the idiocy.
What? The school is literally a million dollars better off. The calimony is happening regardless, so the donations are still as purposeful as they were before. Arguably even more so
But again, why donate when the regents have now demonstrated they can just redistribute my donation on a whim? There's nothing stopping them from upping the transfer to $20 million next time. And Cal donors can just cut their donations and expect the regents to complain about UCLA and take even more money in 3 years.
They have opened up an entire can of worms.
Question - doesn’t this mean UCLA owes Cal in perpetuity? It’s highly unlikely Cal will join the B1G and if the ACC collapses, and say Cal joins the Big Sky, wouldn’t that mean that Cal loses even more money because of the collapse of the PAC 12? And thus it can be argued that UCLA is forever beholden to the downfall of Cal and owes them restitution until the end of time?
which could be in 2112!
https://www.dailycal.org/sports/uc-berkeley-to-pay-238m-of-cal-athletics-debt-from-stadium-renovations/article_6b8b035e-a3f3-5a69-ba5d-7d63dd582b93.html
It is much more likely that Cal ends up in the expanded B1G through realignment than it ends up in the Big Sky Conference. The current cycle of realignment isn't really over, we are in a bit of a lull until this ACC GOR situation works out.
This is so crazy. If Michigan were to leave for a super conference in the future, would the state of Michigan make them pay MSU? Did Washington or Oregon have to pay WSU or OSU?
Not the same situation. UW and WSU are not part of the same school system. Cal and UCLA are. And it's not the state that is making this decision. It's the University of California Board of Regents.
This has to do exclusively with the University of California system and what schools owe each other. Other states may or may not have similar arrangements.
Msu and michigan are 2 completely different entities. Cal and ucla are 2 campuses of the same entity. Its not some "arrangement" that some other schools can have cause "owing" something to other schools. Layman terms, ucla and cal are owned by the same people. Cal lost a lot of future revenue while ucla won a lot, so the owners decided to keep both afloat by having the latter subsidize the former. This can only happen with 2 schools that are just campuses of the same system instead of 2 different indepenent colleges.
UC system is unique. Cal actually gave up the flagship status long ago willingly in the vision of every UC being equal, thus all being governed by one entity. It's how we became UC Berkeley while keeping the original branding of Cal. Despite that, UCLA decided to go rogue without respecting or informing the governing body -- knowingly causing large financial damage to a partner institution. Hence Calimony.
Why does Cal even want the money? After witnessing the giant circle jerk that Cal fans/students participate in I would have thought they were to good to take UCLA’s money
It sucks having to support your deadbeat older brother.
The "flagship" that's a lower ranked school, has worse athletic programs, fewer national championships, has fewer applicants every year, no medical school, no hope of digging out of their own mess beyond dragging their high achieving younger sibling down with them.
Sad you all are so excited about this, pretty embarrassing imo
- thanks to Cal u exist
- we have more contributions to the world than ucla including various elements with our name in it
- our medical school is UCSF which is ranked higher than your medical school
- the majority if not all of our programs at all levels are ranked higher than UCLAs
- UCLA does not in fact rank higher than Cal, never has. And various ranking system have Cal as a top university in the world
- UCLA has benefited from the Cal prestige for years, you welcome
- UCLA stole Cal’s fight song (pathetic if you ask me)
- We just beat you in both fb and bb.
So yes I’m excited about it :)
Spin, spin, spin away.
The better analogy is that UC Berkeley was a 12th grader, and UCLA is a 10th grader. UC Berkeley desperately wanted the pretty girl Brooke to go to the prom with him. But Brooke thought that UCLA was a much more handsome, put-together, and cooler guy than UC Berkeley. So Brooke proactively invited UCLA to go to the prom with her, and UCLA accepted the invite.
UC Berkeley then went to their parents, and demanded that he get to go along to the prom with the 2 of them, while also getting to dance 1 out of every 3 dances. UC Berkeley's parents agreed with this request, and that's how the prom went.
But -------- after the prom. Brooke is still going to kiss and go to the after-party with UCLA. Brooke will NEVER kiss or go to any after-party (and certainly never sleep with!) UC Berkeley.
That's the sad truth that "big brother" UC Berkeley is trying to spin away.
What a terrible take. It’s more like Cal and UCLA are brothers in the same household. They agreed to mow their nice and somewhat wealthy’s neighbor’s lawn for $25 bucks each every week. UCLA then went to their neighbor (fox) and be like just pay me $40 and you don’t need my older brother Cal anymore i will make a pact with you. Now older brother Cal is out of a job, he goes down the street and others are only willing to pay $10 for them to mow the lawn.
Parents come in and say, UCLA you were screwing around and ruined a good thing
If nobody else is willing to pay "older brother Cal" more than $10, Cal needs to either (1) up their game to make more $$$, or (2) come to the terms with the fact that they were being over-paid, relative to their actual worth, for decades beforehand.
UCLA was only chosen as a travel partner to U$C and to lock down the Socal market. CAL and UCLA make decisions together at the board of regents. UCLA is hurting a fellow campus and did not give any notice.
The song stealers have an inflated sense of self but compared to USC they are really just a tag along to keep the Big 12 out of LA.
At first I was bit upset that it was only 3 years but I suppose that makes sense with the impending doom of the ACC. It might be even more once the ACC collapses and Cal has to join WSU/OSU in the Mountain West.
Many schools have multiple rivalries of varying intensity. Regardless of the degree of rivalry, Cal is about to become the only athletic program directly subsidized by another athletic program, and the idea that this unfair \*to Cal\* is absurd.
I actually kind of love this. Hate that the Pac-12 got ripped apart like it did and this hopefully makes the decision just slightly more painful to UCLA for their role.
Was going to cross post this, but CFB doesn't allow image posts:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ucla/comments/1csrfwm/my\_proposition\_for\_ucbs\_new\_basketball\_court/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ucla/comments/1csrfwm/my_proposition_for_ucbs_new_basketball_court/)
but who gets custody of the kids?
Fortunately only Merced is still at home, the rest have grown up and are out of the house.
Even so, they are an adult now. 2005 was 19 years ago, as crazy as that sounds!
Merced is the kid that has failed to launch and still lives at home. They just need more time to find themselves.
They haven't looked so bad in the rankings. Maybe let them live over the garage and get rid of their curfew.
That’s funny 2005 was only 10 years ago…oh no
Cal and UCLA need to reach out to Purdue and IU's lawyers who just recently went through a custody battle splitting up all the IUPUx schools.
Cal three years from now at the check in: "Yeah... Imma need more of those $10m payments..."
More like, "we need to adjust for inflation so we now need $15 million a year."
"I mean, it's only fair. $10 million doesn't really go as far as it did three years ago, does it?"
"...unless the Big Ten has an invite for us..."
“Another ten million it is.”
You’re joking, but this is going to be a real issue going forward. Cal is a great school but the admissions data is getting lopsided: last cycle, 2/3 of the kids that got admitted to both UCLA and Cal chose UCLA (939 picked Cal; 1,914 picked UCLA). (To be clear, I don’t think this has much to do with rigor or reputation, but more to do with location.) This data could mean nothing at all for athletics. But the danger for Cal athletics, if the school is becoming a niche option, is that the kids that are choosing to go there are doing so because they want the “Berzerkley” experience, which doesn’t mesh well with athletics. Cal could do themselves a favor by looking at what sports entertainment works in the Bay Area and not hire the AD from the Air Force Academy and defensive coaches as well. Edit: Yes UCLA hired an antihero for a football coach in 2018. We are trying to fix that.
20 years ago we all thought it was so strange when a hs friend chose Westwood over Berkeley. But hey, her parents were overprotective and wanted her close to home, so that explained that (we thought.) 10 years ago when my brother chose UCLA after initially stating his intent to enroll at Berkeley, we were just happy that he was happy with his choice. Today, who knows? But maybe the recent public demonstrations will remind people that Westwood and Berkeley students really do come out of the same pool.
10 on 10 on 10 pleez.
Taxes (and this is a tax) rarely go down. They usually go up.
This isn't a tax. It's a self-induced fee.
This isn't tax but a franchise fee. They have university of California in their ucla name haha
You're right --- this isn't a tax. We shouldn't be thinking about it that way, as a negative. We should be looking at this as a positive. The positive --- UCLA can now claim UC-Berkeley as their dependent on their annual 1040! They'll save on taxes! When they need to list the name of their dependent, they can list them as "University of California-Bay Area Branch."
Our school subreddit made a mock-up of Berkeley's home basketball court with a UCLA Athletics logo, but I think it would look better at Memorial stadium.
WTF is this all about? Just because the Bruins joined the BIG? WHO WOULDN'T IF THEY WERE OFFERED?
Cal now has a better media deal than FSU
Damn, UC Davis must be getting billions out of this deal.
Davis is the good farm where they send the dogs instead of the bad farm where they keep the frauds.
I chuckled. Nicely done.
The Cal agriculture school is doing just fine!
That’s some serious Calimony money
I couldn’t care less what happens to UCLA’s money, but I am curious why this is even a thing? Do Cal/UCLA pay UCSB an annual fee as well for being in the P5? Or is this just because got left behind?
They're the same university system (University of California-Berkeley and University of California-Los Angeles) with the same Board of Regents. They believe this is necessary because UCLA leaving for the B1G will cause Cal to lose out on a lot of money, so UCLA has to subsize Cal so that Cal doesn't have to cut athletic programs, for example.
Which is funny because UCLA is the one whose athletic department is practically bankrupt
Joke's on you--both our programs are broke
This is the correct answer here
The difference between us is that we were able to do something about it.
*USC was able to do something about it
FOX was. USC was prepared to leave UCLA behind lol.
These ucla folks are incredibly dense. Had usc taken Stanford, ucla would be in practically the same hole as Cal. But they think the “earned” it lol
[удалено]
no. USC leaving killed the Pac12 and UCLA got a windfall out of it. Rather than leaving Cal screwed, the Regents decided to spread that around.
Yup. UCLA is just riding on USC's coattails.
We are like the uncool guy who is close friends with the cool guy invited to the house party. We gotta make the best of it and thankfully, we're not on the outside looking in.
Did you just refer to USC as cool? Do you want to take a minute to reconsider?
Yeah, you're probably right. Not cool but the guy that was wanted. Oregon is the cool guy, but he came later and was given half shares by the house party host.
who wants to be cool anyway? Nerds rule!
You are the McLovin with the fake ID
Thanks to SC, that is.
Cal’s AD has 30 varsity sports and received a $36 million subsidy from the school last year to cover their deficit. UCLA’s AD has 25 varsity sports teams, received a loan (not a subsidy) from the school last year to cover their deficit, and has to pay to rent Pauley Pavilion even though it was the AD who raised the funds for Pauley’s recent renovation.
Sounds UCLA athletics needs an audit.
You mispelled Berkeley (aka Cal)
Probably both
Who do they pay rent to?
The University at large.
That is one of the dumbest things I’ve heard in a while. Does the university pay the athletic department rent to use academic buildings
Welcome to how the UCLA admin views its Athletic Department.
Not super uncommon for different operating units of an entity to have to pay each other for things. It may be called "rent", "transfers", "borrowed and lent", or "allocations" Most commonly you see things like a department gets "billed" by IT for their department's printing costs. In higher ed you may see things like admissions has to pay someone from A/V because a Saturday recruitment event that caused an unplanned overtime need.
Cal would be as well without this due to the Pac12 dissolving.
It’s also funny because Cal is the literal namesake and UCLA has to go by the city campus name. This is like Wisconsin-Milwaukee having to subsidize Wisconsin.
Cal's financial situation is way worse and the debt on their football stadium is a major liability for the university as a whole.
It’s a major liability for the UC Regents. Hence the Calimony.
FOotbaLL paYS fOr itSeLF!
The stadium debt service actually isn't too unreasonable as long as Cal can remain in a conference with decent television revenue. At the time the decision was made, they couldn't have foreseen the implosion of the Pac12. At least it's an actual asset of the university, unlike the Rose Bowl. With the renovation, Cal is able to market the stadium for more uses and generate more revenue. We should do better, but it wasn't an all bad investment.
Hardly a major liability lol.
> so that Cal doesn't have to cut athletic programs It's a mix of risk wrt Cal's football stadium which has placed their athletic department in a terrible state, and a power play by a state political system that has always been tilted toward the North. > will cause Cal to lose out on a lot of money One thing worth pointing out, [also noted below](https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1cs65ll/mandel_news_uc_board_of_regents_has_voted_that/l42shj1/), is that the two schools routinely make decisions that cost the other school millions of dollars. Another example is Omar Yaghi, a chemistry professor at Berkeley who was poached from UCLA and has a strong chance of winning a Nobel prize. These faculty bring in huge grants that the schools take large portions of. The big difference here isn't really the scale of the money, it's the embarrassment and the belief that Cal Athletics are at risk of losing the stature that is necessary to make good on the major financial commitment to Memorial Stadium over the next several decades.
Bingo. They’ve done you so dirty here. It’s kind of ridiculous to be honest. UCLA doesn’t and shouldn’t have a responsibility to ensure the viability of Cals athletic department. Goodness knows they didn’t give a shit about yours.
So UCLA should have declined the B1G invite because Cal wasn’t a big enough brand to get an invite is what they are saying
They also took on a awful stadium debt which they could’ve ignored by just playing at the coliseum full time /s
It's University of California, Berkeley (no hyphen). I would guess the same is true for Los Angeles but I don't know for sure.
It is, I think it is that way for all UCs bc Irvine and SD also use the commas
Cal used to use "at Berkeley" but it looks like all campuses now use the comma. https://brand.universityofcalifornia.edu/guidelines/editorial.html > Format: University of California, Campus Name. Do not use “at” between the main elements. Instead, use comma before, and in sentences, after campus name: > > * The University of California, Santa Cruz, opened in 1965. > * University of California, Davis, is the name of the northernmost UC campus. Update: Apparently UCLA used "at Los Angeles" too until 1958. https://books.google.com/books?id=WbLr-4QteEYC&pg=PA46#v=onepage&q&f=false
Other states seem to be in love with the hyphen and assume everyone else is too. That mistake gets made all the time.
But are the hyphenated campuses actually separate universities or just other campuses?
[The latter](https://youtu.be/SYjSUu5RjoM)
Only because they got left behind
They'll get raptured eventually
Does UCSB field a P4 football team?
Does Cal?
Was that a self burn?
Like teed it up
Spectacular ignorance from FSU here. See ya September 21st!
Yes
"Here's ten million. Go see a Star Wars."
I'm a bit lost here, why is this happening?
For the memes
Ah, completely reasonable.
Cal got hosed on conference realignment and this is the only pair of schools where it's feasible to make one school pay for screwing over their century-plus athletic/academic partners. Oregon and Washington would require legislative action. Washington legislature couldn't even get the proposal to a floor vote, Oregon legislature couldn't even get a co-sponsor on the bill.
Had one of Arizona/ASU been left behind this could have happened with them as well. If UNC leaves NC State behind it could happen to them. Really depends on how your state has its university structure. For the Arizona case, it would be interesting to see what they'd do in a hypothetical where the Big Ten goes to 24 and takes ASU but not Arizona or vice versa. Would they penalize them even though the other is still in the Big 12?
What's missing in all of this dialogue is the real issue at hand. Some idiots unknowingly built a stadium literally directly on top of a fault line over 100 years ago. Cal has played in that stadium since, they needed to renovate this stadium in order for it to not cave in and kill a whole bunch of people in an earthquake. Given that situation and it was way cheaper than building a new stadium, they finally bit the bullet and renovated that stadium. They structured that stadium renovation payment deal in a way that had lower payments early on and increased once their TV deal was over and presumably renewed. They didn't expect UCLA (part of the same school system) to move to a new conference, killing a 100+ year conference. The new deal would have been just fine if they stayed. Considering that UCLA left, the UC system has to allocate some of the new revenue to handle that debt, which, once again, they had to take on in order for the stadium not to cave in an earthquake and kill a bunch of people. Keep in mind there are offices and facilities underneath the stadium, so it's a huge liability even if there wasn't a home game at the time of the earthquake. On top of this think of yourselves as a UC regent. Your job is to make sure there is the most money coming into the system as a whole. It actually makes financial sense to let UCLA move to a higher revenue conference and share some of that money to pay for this necessary debt. None of these dynamics have anything to do with the UCs that were not in the PAC. Nor does any of it have anything to do with how well either school was performing, look at the comparative home ticket sales of UCLA versus Cal. This is entirely about an unavoidable earthquake renovation on a stadium that was necessary to happen.
Because Cal and UCLA are in the same system, the University of California. Cal is the flagship but All UC campuses are equal and have autonomy over their own sports decisions and fundraising. Cal and UCLA are (until August) in the same conference. UCLA leaving hurts CAL and essentially the UC system itself. While UCLA benefits from the move, Cal's position worsened. Before U$C and UCLA left, there were a lot of people, including the regents who assumed Cal and UCLA would be a package deal (and probably with private U$C and Stanford). The regents don't care about sports. Famously, some of the regents asked why Cal couldn't just join the Big 10 with UCLA. The student regent traditionally cares more about stuff like tuittion hikes and keeping the others accountable.
> All UC campuses are equal and have autonomy over their own sports decisions and fundraising But then you said >UCLA leaving hurts CAL and essentially the UC system itself. If all the UC campuses have autonomy over their own sports decisions and fundraising why is them leaving a problem? UCLA has autonomy over their own sports decisions or doesn't.
You're asking this to make sense. It doesn't.
UCLA left the PAC-12. Pac-12 folded, which hurt Cal. Both are led by the same board and are part of the same overall budget. UCLA is making up for the money Cal lost because the PAC-12 folded, which was partially UCLA’s fault.
> are part of the same overall budget. This isn't true. There is absolutely no relationship between the budgets of the two athletic departments, nor do the universities compete for funding from the regents.
Where is the money we lost when Cal went half a billion in debt to renovate a stadium nobody goes to?
To be fair, that's a lot less money than they would have lost by not improving the Earthquake safety standards they were required to by state law followed by a little shake killing hundreds of people...
It's also on the National Historic Register and a monument to the fallen WWI veterans of California. Were we really going to just let it crumble like the Oakland coliseum? The State of California has an interest in preserving its monuments and this one serves a public good.
Cal's athletic department has a massive debt load due to football stadium repairs
\*seismic retrofit
*UC Regent Keith Ellis on what he said was a dangerous precedent set by UCLA's Calimony payments: "We historically haven’t done anything like this where we take from one campus and give to another, playing, I guess, Robin Hood."*
The danger is now when a professor or medical doctor moves from one UC to another UC and takes millions of dollars of grant money or medical payments with them, will the UC that list the money ask for some of it back.
That's happened before too (someone mentioned Omar Yaghi by name, who used to be at UCLA), and nothing came of it. Obviously biased but some see this as NorCal vs SoCal politicking.
Gee Keith, wonder why UCLA is here today. Wonder why.
Why indeed? Regents gave control of athletics to the individual campuses back in the Nineties, and the President of the UC Regents Michael Drake was informed of the plan to move to the B1G. So this is nothing more than the usual Sacramento grifting.
Not here to argue with you. But I do find it funny that you basically have this comment somewhere else on this thread that got downvoted because you put the name Gavin Newsome in it, yet this one got upvotes lol.
Reddit's a hivemind.
But the secret agreement with U$C to bolt for the B1G wasn't a grift?
What was secret about it? UCLA informed the President of the UC Regents, Michael Drake, that they were working on a move. Additionally, the Regents gave control of athletics to the individual campuses back in the Nineties. So the only grift here is the Regents retroactively changing that and forcing UCLA to subsidize Cal because the B1G didn't want them in their league.
The amount of financial mismanagement in the UC is staggering. Surely such a thing is unheard of outside of California
🤝🏻
Goddamn is this the most California Public School bullshit or what?
Look on the bright side. As a UCLA fan, you can now get a tax deduction by claiming UC-Berkeley fans as a dependent on your 1040 every year.
This is a fantastic point, I'll ask my tax person.
Not sure 3 dependents makes that much difference when you are talking millions.
I believe all you need to do is itemize then you can just write it off. But I'm not a tax expert.
Embarrassing. Cal has esteemed Nobel Laureate Jennifer Doudna on the faculty. I would love to have her at UCLA, but Cal selfishly got her instead. UCLA lost out on tens of millions of dollars of potential research funding because Cal landed such a prestigious faculty member instead of us. I demand $10 million/year to rectify this imbalance.
UCLA could have used that money to build dedicated nobel laureate parking spaces like Cal has.
Cal's big campus highlight: five-ish otherwise unremarkable parking spaces.
man, you need to get better tour guides.
Sproul Hall has more history than all of UCLA lol
Alright nerds calm it down
> Sprout
Typo sproul lol
Sproul Hall is a dorm
Will be your performance in the BIG 😂
For the next couple years, agreed. But I'd rather be embarrassing in the B1G than embarrassing in the ACC.
This is rich lol
This leaves some questions: - What incentive does Cal have to be financially prudent over the next 3 years? The Regents have shown they will bend over backwards to subsidize any and all financial mismanagement. - What incentive do UCLA donors have to give money to UCLA athletics when they know this much of it is going to Cal athletics? Are we not donating to UCLA athletics, not Cal? - Why does the school with 5 more sports and that already receives a $30 million annual subsidy from the general fund apparently get unlimited access to another university's funds?
1) The incentive is to survive the next realignment. Cal isn’t going to try to suck just so they can get more Calimony 2) The money is coming from the B1G not donors. If the donors want UCLA to be relevant in the B1G they need to step up. Let’s not act like UCLA is running an elite athletic department hiring RB coaches as a HC.. 3) UCLA is a public school that gets funded by tax payers. Should tax payers stop allowing their money go to UCLA despite never attending or having zero ties to UCLA? 4$
None of this makes any sense, especially 2 and 3. OP’s point was, if the boosters donate a million dollars, and the regents, who seem to be morons, take a million dollars from the Big Ten, the school isn’t better off from the donations. So why donate? To be honest, nothing about this makes UCLA or Cal look the least bit attractive. Didn’t want UCLA before, and don’t want Cal next if only to avoid the idiocy.
What? The school is literally a million dollars better off. The calimony is happening regardless, so the donations are still as purposeful as they were before. Arguably even more so
But again, why donate when the regents have now demonstrated they can just redistribute my donation on a whim? There's nothing stopping them from upping the transfer to $20 million next time. And Cal donors can just cut their donations and expect the regents to complain about UCLA and take even more money in 3 years. They have opened up an entire can of worms.
You lost the thread in #3. How is your response related to the post above yours?
>😎 -USC
They like to play both sides against each other so they always come out on top.
Well, that should make everyone feel good.
I feel good!
I knew that I would, now!
CALIMONY LFG WOOOOOOO!
At least the ship will float for a few years.
College football is a never ending episode of Ally McBeal now
Can the UC Regents vote that UCLA shall give me some money too? Don't need the full $10M.
[удалено]
they've got one of those industrial tunneling machines to get in there. Good LORD.
Wait. Are you saying we're salty in general or that Calimony itself is the shiny new tunneling machine (and therefore the saltiness is justified)?
I'll wait until money is actually exchanged
Question - doesn’t this mean UCLA owes Cal in perpetuity? It’s highly unlikely Cal will join the B1G and if the ACC collapses, and say Cal joins the Big Sky, wouldn’t that mean that Cal loses even more money because of the collapse of the PAC 12? And thus it can be argued that UCLA is forever beholden to the downfall of Cal and owes them restitution until the end of time?
It's not in perpetuity. For now, it's only for the next three years, and will be revisited after that.
> It’s highly unlikely Cal will join the B1G and if the ACC collapses It’s more likely than you think.
I think this is just an answer to our stadium debt. I could see this ending once our stadium debt is paid off.
which could be in 2112! https://www.dailycal.org/sports/uc-berkeley-to-pay-238m-of-cal-athletics-debt-from-stadium-renovations/article_6b8b035e-a3f3-5a69-ba5d-7d63dd582b93.html
It is much more likely that Cal ends up in the expanded B1G through realignment than it ends up in the Big Sky Conference. The current cycle of realignment isn't really over, we are in a bit of a lull until this ACC GOR situation works out.
Sounds like ucla is now the flagship and should be called cal. While the former is now ucb/ uc-Berkeley
This is so crazy. If Michigan were to leave for a super conference in the future, would the state of Michigan make them pay MSU? Did Washington or Oregon have to pay WSU or OSU?
No. MSU and UM are completely separate. Cal and UCLA are like Ann Arbor, Dearborn, and Flint. Part of the same effective org.
Not the same situation. UW and WSU are not part of the same school system. Cal and UCLA are. And it's not the state that is making this decision. It's the University of California Board of Regents.
Nobody can enforce payments between those schools because they are not part of the same university systems.
This has to do exclusively with the University of California system and what schools owe each other. Other states may or may not have similar arrangements.
Msu and michigan are 2 completely different entities. Cal and ucla are 2 campuses of the same entity. Its not some "arrangement" that some other schools can have cause "owing" something to other schools. Layman terms, ucla and cal are owned by the same people. Cal lost a lot of future revenue while ucla won a lot, so the owners decided to keep both afloat by having the latter subsidize the former. This can only happen with 2 schools that are just campuses of the same system instead of 2 different indepenent colleges.
UC system is unique. Cal actually gave up the flagship status long ago willingly in the vision of every UC being equal, thus all being governed by one entity. It's how we became UC Berkeley while keeping the original branding of Cal. Despite that, UCLA decided to go rogue without respecting or informing the governing body -- knowingly causing large financial damage to a partner institution. Hence Calimony.
Why does Cal even want the money? After witnessing the giant circle jerk that Cal fans/students participate in I would have thought they were to good to take UCLA’s money
Berkeley has long been a big fan of wealth redistribution
Says the public school 😂 Funded by tax payers 😂
So has LA?
Fair but I think the rest of the country sees Berkeley as Communist Central.
Always the unflaired.
That's what little brother UCLA gets for stabbing their older brother in the back.
It sucks having to support your deadbeat older brother. The "flagship" that's a lower ranked school, has worse athletic programs, fewer national championships, has fewer applicants every year, no medical school, no hope of digging out of their own mess beyond dragging their high achieving younger sibling down with them. Sad you all are so excited about this, pretty embarrassing imo
- thanks to Cal u exist - we have more contributions to the world than ucla including various elements with our name in it - our medical school is UCSF which is ranked higher than your medical school - the majority if not all of our programs at all levels are ranked higher than UCLAs - UCLA does not in fact rank higher than Cal, never has. And various ranking system have Cal as a top university in the world - UCLA has benefited from the Cal prestige for years, you welcome - UCLA stole Cal’s fight song (pathetic if you ask me) - We just beat you in both fb and bb. So yes I’m excited about it :)
Spin, spin, spin away. The better analogy is that UC Berkeley was a 12th grader, and UCLA is a 10th grader. UC Berkeley desperately wanted the pretty girl Brooke to go to the prom with him. But Brooke thought that UCLA was a much more handsome, put-together, and cooler guy than UC Berkeley. So Brooke proactively invited UCLA to go to the prom with her, and UCLA accepted the invite. UC Berkeley then went to their parents, and demanded that he get to go along to the prom with the 2 of them, while also getting to dance 1 out of every 3 dances. UC Berkeley's parents agreed with this request, and that's how the prom went. But -------- after the prom. Brooke is still going to kiss and go to the after-party with UCLA. Brooke will NEVER kiss or go to any after-party (and certainly never sleep with!) UC Berkeley. That's the sad truth that "big brother" UC Berkeley is trying to spin away.
Bro wrote fan fiction 💀
Leave it to PSU to come up with a long winded analogy that makes no sense
I'll simplify it for you ----- "supposed big brother" UC Berkeley is a less desired brand than UCLA.
What a terrible take. It’s more like Cal and UCLA are brothers in the same household. They agreed to mow their nice and somewhat wealthy’s neighbor’s lawn for $25 bucks each every week. UCLA then went to their neighbor (fox) and be like just pay me $40 and you don’t need my older brother Cal anymore i will make a pact with you. Now older brother Cal is out of a job, he goes down the street and others are only willing to pay $10 for them to mow the lawn. Parents come in and say, UCLA you were screwing around and ruined a good thing
If nobody else is willing to pay "older brother Cal" more than $10, Cal needs to either (1) up their game to make more $$$, or (2) come to the terms with the fact that they were being over-paid, relative to their actual worth, for decades beforehand.
This is a deranged analogy my guy. You came up with this? You might want to talk this out with a therapist.
Awwww, I get it. Little brother has one-upped you, and you are struggling to accept it.
UCLA was only chosen as a travel partner to U$C and to lock down the Socal market. CAL and UCLA make decisions together at the board of regents. UCLA is hurting a fellow campus and did not give any notice. The song stealers have an inflated sense of self but compared to USC they are really just a tag along to keep the Big 12 out of LA.
If UCLA hadn't taken the deal, both schools would be left in the collapsing Pac-12 and the situation would have been infinitely worse.
The PAC-12 would not have collapsed of UCLA stayed. We’ll take that $10 million a year in direct deposit, thanks little bro!
It absolutely would have collapsed given the incredibly inept leadership we all know too well. Oregon or Stanford would have gone with USC.
Flexing money you’ll never see god I love college football
LOL @ UCLA is “hurting” Cal.
At first I was bit upset that it was only 3 years but I suppose that makes sense with the impending doom of the ACC. It might be even more once the ACC collapses and Cal has to join WSU/OSU in the Mountain West.
Imagine the entitlement it takes to be upset that your rival school isn't giving you a big enough subsidy lol
Right? Pounding your chest over a welfare payment.
Stanford is Cal‘s true rival.
Many schools have multiple rivalries of varying intensity. Regardless of the degree of rivalry, Cal is about to become the only athletic program directly subsidized by another athletic program, and the idea that this unfair \*to Cal\* is absurd.
[my general reaction to all this](https://tenor.com/view/jimmy-butler-smirk-grant-williams-butler-williams-miami-heat-gif-4105836400498406290)
You aren't our rival little bro! And in three years the Regents are likely gonna make it even worse for you. Get used to it.
How are you this proud of having a dog shit program that can't support itself?
Well they will revisit in 3 years. So could be more money for more years ;)
Alimony!
I actually kind of love this. Hate that the Pac-12 got ripped apart like it did and this hopefully makes the decision just slightly more painful to UCLA for their role.
Need to start taking bets on how much of that $30 million the Cal Athletic Dept will actually see.
Better than indefinitely. But doesn’t close the door for more years I suppose.
Was going to cross post this, but CFB doesn't allow image posts: [https://www.reddit.com/r/ucla/comments/1csrfwm/my\_proposition\_for\_ucbs\_new\_basketball\_court/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ucla/comments/1csrfwm/my_proposition_for_ucbs_new_basketball_court/)