Football
Previous topic | Next topic Return to Forum
Flat 4
Joined: 1/13/14 Posts: 3,910
So what do we do with the Big 10 money?
Posted Mon, Aug 22 6:40 am
So this money goes to fund the athletic dept but with the current NIL rules am I right to assume none of it goes directly to the players? Our current deficit is well documented, and this along with the UA settlement will get us back in the black, but how do we spend the infusion of cash to be better?

To me, the path to a better team is getting better players and that appears to need to come from NIL money. A friend of mine went to the UofA football NIL fundraising discussion with Jedd Fisch and the entire AD. They have a modest goal of raising $4M to be distributed to all the players evenly based on charitable outreach programs that the Dept will conduct and the players will have to participate in. They are talking something like $11K annually per football player (walk ons included) over and above their stipend that the scholarship players currently receive. This is a tax deductible donation for people that want to donate to the football charitable NIL fund.

I haven’t heard UCLA doing something like this, but it does seem like a good supplement to the targeted NIL deals that the top talent will have access to.
OswegoBruin
Joined: 11/11/10 Posts: 16,944
The best way, in the current ridiculous market
Posted Mon, Aug 22 7:41 am
In response to So what do we do with the Big 10 money? (Flat 4)
of NIL free for all (still amazed that some didn't think this would happen) is to get the program solvent, then take donations that were meant for program functions and advise they be donated to NIL efforts. Few things would help us more at this point.
JimT
Joined: 2/09/05 Posts: 970
What Money
Posted Tue, Aug 23 10:12 am
In response to So what do we do with the Big 10 money? (Flat 4)
The board of regents lead by our misguided governor will likely nix our going to th Big 10
OswegoBruin
Joined: 11/11/10 Posts: 16,944
No, they won't.
Posted Tue, Aug 23 10:28 am
In response to What Money (JimT)
If they were going to, they would have done it already.
Crispy
Joined: 1/13/14 Posts: 6,719
Totally agree
Posted Tue, Aug 23 10:54 am
In response to No, they won't. (OswegoBruin)
Can’t see it being undone. At most UCLA shares a small cut with Cal which in my extremely minority view would be altruistic and reasonable if it’s like 10 percent for a few years max.
Alta Loma Bruin
Joined: 1/13/14 Posts: 2,623
Make it retroactive
Posted Tue, Aug 23 5:30 pm
In response to Totally agree (Crispy)
They have been living off of us for years.
BRUINS 1
Joined: 1/28/05 Posts: 19,758
How about zero?!
Posted Wed, Aug 24 8:13 pm
In response to Make it retroactive (Alta Loma Bruin)
Why would UCLA have to subsidize Cal?
JimT
Joined: 2/09/05 Posts: 970
Interesting concept
Posted Thu, Aug 25 3:45 pm
In response to How about zero?! (BRUINS 1)
But it runs contrary to the politics in this state.
MarkLA
Joined: 12/06/11 Posts: 2,850
IMO, it's a bad move for Cal to press too hard
Posted Wed, Aug 24 10:50 pm
In response to What Money (JimT)
Any bad blood with UCLA could come to bite them later if Cal were to lobby for B10 membership, for example.
cnet
Joined: 8/07/14 Posts: 9,697
Has Cal pressed at all?
Posted Thu, Aug 25 5:57 am
In response to IMO, it's a bad move for Cal to press too hard (MarkLA)
I haven't heard a peep from Cal, it's only been from the politicians which includes the regents.

--------
The only way to prove your ideas are correct is to have them challenged and criticized. And this is why free speech is so important.
MarkLA
Joined: 12/06/11 Posts: 2,850
Well, I think they're acting as a proxy
Posted Thu, Aug 25 10:53 am
In response to Has Cal pressed at all? (cnet)
If Cal weren't up in arms, there'd be no there there.
ShowtimeUCLA
Joined: 11/19/17 Posts: 1,974
Go on their forums, you’ll see how much they complain
Posted Thu, Aug 25 3:38 pm
In response to Has Cal pressed at all? (cnet)
They hate us so much. Go to writeforcalifornia.com you will see vitriol and hatred. I’ve shown them that mathematically, our move to the Big Ten has very small impact on their athletic budget (around $2 million) and that we can vouch for them for eventual admission into the Big Ten. They don’t care one bit. They have this mentality that because they are the flagship school, the UC Regents must not allow them to fall so far behind in revenue compared to UCLA. That’s what concerns them, not the actual impact on their school. It’s the fact that we become the de facto flagship school. Pure jealousy is what it is.

For years I’ve advocated for independence from the UC Board of Regents. Most people dismissed it but now they are finally coming around to see how dangerous it is for our future to be determined by a disloyal, ignorant board of governors with no regard for UCLA. The regents didn’t even hire professional sports TV consultants to assess the impact of UCLA moving to the Big Ten. They merely used some article from trojanswire.com. Go read about the questions that were posed by the Regents in response to the report. It will absolutely shock you how uninformed and clueless these people are.
ShowtimeUCLA
Joined: 11/19/17 Posts: 1,974
They won’t because of their legal duties
Posted Thu, Aug 25 4:16 pm
In response to What Money (JimT)
The Regents are constitutionally required to act in the best interest of the UC system on behalf of the people of California. This move is objectively in the best interest of the UC system because it would more than double the total revenue of all UC athletics programs while only constituting a $2 million hit on Cal’s athletic department, which represents just 2% of their entire athletic budget and only reduces their TV revenue by 6.2%. It has absolutely no negative impact on remaining UC athletic programs. Even the UCOP report acknowledges that for future sake for the UC regents to interfere in conference realignment decisions by campuses it would require an impact on athletic budget that exceeds 10%. The report also acknowledges that increased travel will only impact some of UCLA’s athletic programs but most will have minimal or no impact at all. For those programs impacted by increased travel, the report acknowledges it could easily be mitigated by the increased budget. Much of the country is now operating remotely anyway so students can still attend class while traveling for athletic events.
bruinbiochem06
Joined: 7/15/11 Posts: 611
I say we give it all to Kal
Posted Tue, Aug 23 10:42 am (Edited Tue, Aug 23 10:42 am)
In response to So what do we do with the Big 10 money? (Flat 4)
Not!
ghoetke1
Joined: 9/11/13 Posts: 109
Use of Big 10 Payout
Posted Thu, Aug 25 8:36 am
In response to So what do we do with the Big 10 money? (Flat 4)
So this money goes to fund the athletic dept but with the current NIL rules am I right to assume none of it goes directly to the players? Our current deficit is well documented, and this along with the UA settlement will get us back in the black, but how do we spend the infusion of cash to be better?

To me, the path to a better team is getting better players and that appears to need to come from NIL money. A friend of mine went to the UofA football NIL fundraising discussion with Jedd Fisch and the entire AD. They have a modest goal of raising $4M to be distributed to all the players evenly based on charitable outreach programs that the Dept will conduct and the players will have to participate in. They are talking something like $11K annually per football player (walk ons included) over and above their stipend that the scholarship players currently receive. This is a tax deductible donation for people that want to donate to the football charitable NIL fund.

I haven’t heard UCLA doing something like this, but it does seem like a good supplement to the targeted NIL deals that the top talent will have access to.
Bruinjo
Joined: 6/17/05 Posts: 3,972
Big “you know what contest”
Posted Fri, Aug 26 7:09 am
In response to Use of Big 10 Payout (ghoetke1)
I don’t profess to know how all of the money will be spent but it only makes sense that UCLA’s new found Big 10 money will go to cover the entire athletic department.

I just don’t see UCLA playing in the NIL arena to the degree the other top programs will, which will actually create more separation.

I think what is happening to the Pac 12 is inevitable, will keep the Bruins solvent, so very important by the way, and will make them less relevant in football. I think they will be a Purdue like team. The loudest voices are people on this board and face it we are old.

The kids on campus don’t seem to care, the Rose Bowl while a great venue is a lousy home field.

I started going to Bruin games in the 60’s and the crowds were not that great back then.

I had never experienced college football passion until moving to Washington and the UDub and for the last 20 years the Ducks even Oregon State. It is in the DNA.

I actually wanted to merge with the Big 12. Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU, UCLA, Kansas, Arizona, USC, Oregon, leaving others out (senior moment)…what a great Basketball Conference.

I think the composition of UCLA makes it too hard to be a real player in football. Basketball that is their athletic foundation. We are still a blue blood.

“WTD”
BruinSwin
Joined: 9/20/05 Posts: 3,979

Avatars available for donors only
Finance a Drake Upgrade to 40k Seats and Suites**
Posted Fri, Aug 26 3:49 pm
In response to So what do we do with the Big 10 money? (Flat 4)
**
DrKahanamoku
Joined: 11/08/09 Posts: 1,817
Not so crazy an idea.
Posted Sat, Aug 27 7:19 am (Edited Sat, Aug 27 7:34 am)
In response to Finance a Drake Upgrade to 40k Seats and Suites** (BruinSwin)
There are those games, like our first three, that will probably not have a big crowd. And those soccer games that deserve a bigger crowd that might be nice to have on campus with “free” student admissions and costly box seats. Could possibly be a good marketing/sales thing. Might have to move one of the three easy games to more mid-season corresponding to when the students are back on campus and move a league game into the nominal preseason but that might be ok and possibly preferred if it is the correct opponent. Having an easy game mid-season and at home, like on camps, are good things.

Do we have lacrosse and field hockey? This pair of sports could be ones that UCLA should consider particularly as they are the avenue of athletic kids that are steered away from football. Both are seriously great college level sports.
BruinRenaissance
Joined: 9/05/17 Posts: 3,056
I think it's doable if we limit it to 40000 and Saturdays
Posted Sat, Aug 27 2:31 pm
In response to Not so crazy an idea. (DrKahanamoku)
as far as traffic is concerned.
According to this UCLA report
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b5f9d4cc81fe4f15b7bafa75b1f73adf
69000 people in the UCLA community commute.
Various reports put the percentage of drivers at 25 to 33 percent.
Taking the lower number, about 17000 people drive to UCLA every weekday and find parking. So there should be that many parking spaces available. And that number does not include the parking for outpatients at the medical facilities.
Now most of UCLA classes are at weekdays, and most elective medical appointments as well.
Very few people drive to a football game alone. That 17000+ available parking should suffice for a capacity of 40000, as long as UCLA manages the traffic well. (Especially if you consider a good portion of that 40000 can be students who live on campus). As far as the community is concerned, that traffic on several Saturdays a year should not be any different than a normal weekday traffic when UCLA is in session.
GOBRUINS
Joined: 1/27/05 Posts: 9,225
Never going to happen. There is ZERO support among donors
Posted Sat, Aug 27 12:45 pm
In response to Finance a Drake Upgrade to 40k Seats and Suites** (BruinSwin)
for one thing. Second where is the Billions of dollars that it takes to build a stadium going to come from? Third the moment something like that is announced the phrase "see you in court" will start coming from all the people that live around UCLA. Lastly every one that seems to want this to happen has never said that they would buy a ticket to a game once its built. They just seem to want it so that they can say UCLA has one.