Jump to content

USC and UCLA to Big 10???


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, gister said:

I wonder how many other large public school's athletic departments are in the red.

Most of them.

https://www.athleticbusiness.com/operations/budgeting/article/15286953/college-athletic-debt-soars-as-power-5-programs-resist-scrutiny#:~:text="Our athletic department paid interest,athletics-related debt of %24315%2C822%2C286.

The median accumulated debt for Big Ten schools grew from $133.3 million in 2014 to $164.5 million in 2019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

38 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

So basically, most university presidents and boards of regents can’t control their athletic departments. Keeping to a budget is a basic thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between suffering years straight of $20 million plus operating losses (UCLA) and having debt to pay off from the construction of athletic facilities (Big 10 programs).  UCLA is running up credit cards to cover living expenses.  The Big 10 programs are paying off home mortgages.

SLU_Lax and JMM28 like this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, brianstl said:

There is a difference between suffering years straight of $20 million plus operating losses (UCLA) and having debt to pay off from the construction of athletic facilities (Big 10 programs).  UCLA is running up credit cards to cover living expenses.  The Big 10 programs are paying off home mortgages.

In any case, their debts are only increasing.  They're never paying that debt off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

In any case, their debts are only increasing.  They're never paying that debt off.

And in both cases, the people running up the debt are telling their bosses to buzz off and getting away with it. How ever much they make in tv deals in whatever the new conference format will not solve their basic problems, just enable them for a brief while longer before the next spending spree they go puts them back in the same situation, probably further in debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saw a report where UCLA, because it’s coaching staff are considered state employees, may be prohibited from traveling to states that are not deemed to be LGTQB friendly. In the Big10 that would include Iowa, Ohio, and Indiana. Huh, makes you wonder what this will do to UCLA’s plans. 

3star_recruit likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, slu72 said:

Just saw a report where UCLA, because it’s coaching staff are considered state employees, may be prohibited from traveling to states that are not deemed to be LGTQB friendly. In the Big10 that would include Iowa, Ohio, and Indiana. Huh, makes you wonder what this will do to UCLA’s plans. 

You can tell that the UCLA athletic department has not thought this out very well.  Any business merger must take cultural differences into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, slu72 said:

Just saw a report where UCLA, because it’s coaching staff are considered state employees, may be prohibited from traveling to states that are not deemed to be LGTQB friendly. In the Big10 that would include Iowa, Ohio, and Indiana. Huh, makes you wonder what this will do to UCLA’s plans. 

I had mentioned this a while ago, from what it sounds, Boosters will have to pay for the trips to those locations. 

brianstl likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, slu72 said:

Just saw a report where UCLA, because it’s coaching staff are considered state employees, may be prohibited from traveling to states that are not deemed to be LGTQB friendly. In the Big10 that would include Iowa, Ohio, and Indiana. Huh, makes you wonder what this will do to UCLA’s plans. 

That ban has been in place for five years.  It hasn't stopped sports teams from traveling to states on California's no go list.  As long as the money that pays for the travel isn't appropriated by the state legislature, the teams can travel to those states.  When UCLA is receiving $100 million a year from the Big 10, there is no need to hit up the state to fund the travel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

You can tell that the UCLA athletic department has not thought this out very well.  Any business merger must take cultural differences into account.

Very true. I suppose the Big 10 could just schedule around it, no road games for UCLA against the U of Iowa, THE Ohio State University, Purdue and Indiana University, those teams can travel to UCLA. Bigger question for UCLA is what Gov Newsom will do to them. He heads their board of regents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Lord Elrond said:

Very true. I suppose the Big 10 could just schedule around it, no road games for UCLA against the U of Iowa, THE Ohio State University, Purdue and Indiana University, those teams can travel to UCLA. Bigger question for UCLA is what Gov Newsom will do to them. He heads their board of regents

Newsome just spent $105,000 in Florida and a lesser amount in Texas for an ad buy.  It is pretty hypocritical of him to force the a university not to spend money in a "bad" state for the university's benefit when he will spend money in a "bad" state for his own benefit.

Billiken Rich likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slu72 said:

Just saw a report where UCLA, because it’s coaching staff are considered state employees, may be prohibited from traveling to states that are not deemed to be LGTQB friendly. In the Big10 that would include Iowa, Ohio, and Indiana. Huh, makes you wonder what this will do to UCLA’s plans. 

Seems like this is probably nothing. California public universities being in athletic conferences with schools in such states is nothing new. San Diego State is in the same conference as an Boise State. Sacramento State is in the same conference as Montana, Idaho and Utah schools. Away game schedule doesn't appear to have been impacted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some counter words being floated out East include the "C" word ---- contraction.  A recent column compared it to a business where certain portions of the business ---- clothing lines, electronics, food items ---- are not profitable and eventually dumped or discontinued.  That suggestion was laid up against the current makeup of the Big Ten with UCLA and USC.  So who/what lines go?

According to revenue figures explored in the article, the following five programs would be prime candidates for contraction  out of the Big Ten ---- Rutgers, Maryland, Nebraska, Purdue and Indiana.  

While I have no dog in this fight, I think it is very safe to say things ain't over by a long shot.  Another example coming in a future article is relegation ala English soccer ---- some teams move down while others move up.  Such fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some advocating that college football as we knew it would be saved if the power conferences collectively negotiated their TV deal.   This would remove the reason to change conferences.  Therefore, avoiding megaconferences and splitting off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheA_Bomb said:

There are some advocating that college football as we knew it would be saved if the power conferences collectively negotiated their TV deal.   This would remove the reason to change conferences.  Therefore, avoiding megaconferences and splitting off.

That would also expedite removal of the NCAA and non-power conferences from the equation. Pick your poison, I suppose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PAC-12 is about to die.  According to Scheer, the Pac-12 has reportedly received an offer worth $24.5 Million on its expiring media deal.  That is no Bueno so look for members to bolt to B12 and/or other spots.   Smart $ was on the members waiting for the offer before deciding to jump ship.  That offer is really low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 10:09 AM, brianstl said:

Newsome just spent $105,000 in Florida and a lesser amount in Texas for an ad buy.  It is pretty hypocritical of him to force the a university not to spend money in a "bad" state for the university's benefit when he will spend money in a "bad" state for his own benefit.

Maybe the rules do not apply to Newsome somehow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...