The CardBoard
Meanwhile, across the Bay... - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Meanwhile, across the Bay... (/thread-3230.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Meanwhile, across the Bay... - washingtonismoney - 04-20-2012

The key interesting thing I learned from Wilner's article is that they haven't accounted for the Pac-12 Network money. If it comes to fruition, they'll have nice windfall profits to service the debt. Given that the conference owns 100% of the network, that windfall could be very large indeed.

Re: Meanwhile, across the Bay... - Farm93 - 04-20-2012

(04-20-2012, 10:07 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The key interesting thing I learned from Wilner's article is that they haven't accounted for the Pac-12 Network money. If it comes to fruition, they'll have nice windfall profits to service the debt. Given that the conference owns 100% of the network, that windfall could be very large indeed.
Problem with the Pac-12 network money is that every team in the Pac-12 is getting the same windfall.  To get ahead a program needs to find money that others in the conference won't also enjoy.  A packed Memorial full of fans that have made big donations in excess of the stadium costs would be best because those funds were to be unique to the UC at B.  Banking on the idea that $$$ millions from the share of the TV contract will help the budget is very, very shortsighted.

The reality is already clear.  Every OTHER team in the Pac-12 will spend that excess money on improving their competitiveness (salaries, charter flights, etc.).  In the UC at B's case the funds will go to debt payments rather than coaching salaries.  This is not really even hypothetical anymore, this is the reality.  While the fiscally strong Pac-12 programs (UW, Oregon, UCLA & USC) spend their new found wealth on coaches and coach salaries, C.a.l will plan to divert their share of the money to unnecessarily expensive facilities that the donors were to have covered.

That will only last so long, of course, the UC at B will then try to pay a competitive salaries and beg for budget deficit and debt forgiveness.

The Stanford part of me sees the UC at B AD as a pathetic enterprise and is thankful.

But the California taxpayer in me see tearful goodbyes to public school lirbrarians, music and science teachers and wonders why UC excellence requires such wasteful expenditures like a half billion dollars on phase 1 of a stadium renovation that only entertains a select few 5-7 times a year.

Re: Meanwhile, across the Bay... - washingtonismoney - 04-20-2012

(04-20-2012, 10:45 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:Problem with the Pac-12 network money is that every team in the Pac-12 is getting the same windfall.  To get ahead a program needs to find money that others in the conference won't also enjoy.  A packed Memorial full of fans that have made big donations in excess of the stadium costs would be best because those funds were to be unique to the UC at B.  Banking on the idea that $$$ millions from the share of the TV contract will help the budget is very, very shortsighted.

The reality is already clear.  Every OTHER team in the Pac-12 will spend that excess money on improving their competitiveness (salaries, charter flights, etc.).  In the UC at B's case the funds will go to debt payments rather than coaching salaries.  This is not really even hypothetical anymore, this is the reality.  While the fiscally strong Pac-12 programs (UW, Oregon, UCLA & the University of South Central) spend their new found wealth on coaches and coach salaries, C.a.l will plan to divert their share of the money to unnecessarily expensive facilities that the donors were to have covered.
..
...the California taxpayer in me see tearful goodbyes to public school lirbrarians, music and science teachers and wonders why UC excellence requires such wasteful expenditures like a half billion dollars on phase 1 of a stadium renovation that only entertains a select few 5-7 times a year.

So both the Stanford fan in you and the California taxpayer in you can be happy about Pac-12 Network money. The money will, in all likelihood, just service the debt they took out for their boondoggle stadium and therefore won't end up costing the state--while changing the conference standings not a whit.

Re: Good Stuff... - terry - 04-20-2012

(04-19-2012, 01:12 PM)71Bear link Wrote:Disclaimer:  I gave up my football season tickets (and my string of 50 straight Big Games) and withdrew all financial support of the athletic program two years ago because I was disgusted with the direction Barbour was taking the program.

Wow, I'm surprised. I never would have dropped my tickets because of a disagreement with the AD. College football is about the players and the students and the alumni and the fans. There's no reason to let the administrative stuff get in the way of our enjoyment of college football. I've had my issues over the years. I've written letters, sent emails, and have met with the AD several times to raise my concerns. But I never stopped coming to the games. College football is not about the AD. . . .

Re: Meanwhile, across the Bay... - terry - 04-20-2012

(04-20-2012, 10:07 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The key interesting thing I learned from Wilner's article is that they haven't accounted for the Pac-12 Network money. If it comes to fruition, they'll have nice windfall profits to service the debt. Given that the conference owns 100% of the network, that windfall could be very large indeed.

The UCBerkeley athletic department has been running an annual operating deficit of about $11 million, which the university has been covering. The athletic department needs the new Pac 12 TV money to cover both the annual operating deficit and the debt repayments. I'm not sure how the math works on that.

http://budgetcrisis.berkeley.edu/?page_id=16

Re: Meanwhile, across the Bay... - Farm93 - 04-20-2012

(04-20-2012, 11:04 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:So both the Stanford fan in you and the California taxpayer in you can be happy about Pac-12 Network money. The money will, in all likelihood, just service the debt they took out for their boondoggle stadium and therefore won't end up costing the state--while changing the conference standings not a whit.

If the UC at B was a private school your logic would be correct.  They would take their TV funds and direct them to pay the debt on their costly stadium gamble.  They would lose ground on the coaching salary escalation, but it would have to be done to avoid massive budget problems. 

But this is a public school with a record of asking for help from others.

The Pac-12 football head coach salaries are all set to soar to SEC levels.  So Te.d.for.d's replacement will earn a cool $5+ million a year.  His staff will each earn $1 million a piece.  Bye bye TV surplus.  D1 schools are very good at plowing every available dollar back into football to chase the BCS dream.  C.a.l can't afford politically, socially or economically to have a bad football team, especially now.  So the LSU/UT/Michigan/Ohio State/Washington/Oregon salaries for a head coach and his staff must be paid.  The SEC already pays these $5-$8 million per year sum for coaches and $1 million sums for assistants, and the BigTen is plowing their network money into the same category.  It is almost impossible to believe that SC/Arizona/Arizona State/UW and Oregon will just pocket their $10-$15 million and spend it on libraries, research or faculty pay.  They will spend it on football coaches, and the UC at B will need to match to keep up. 

That will leave no room for that pesky stadium debt payment.  Students? Regents?  Governor?  Taxpayers?  The plan was to pay this with the alumni network, but the alums were not willing to give 3 to 4 times as much as Michigan and Texas.  Huh, who knew?

But maybe you are right Wash.  While others in the conference are jumping over each other to pay $5+ million for coaches, the UC at B could discover budget discipline and keep their HC at $2 million.

Operating in a vacuum - 71Bear - 04-20-2012

The one piece of the puzzle that OF did not take into account was adjusting Lupoi's salary to level requested (400K+) would have blown a hole in the overall budget because of the impact that action would have had on all the other salaries.  I learned a long time ago that you cannot allow any employee no matter how valuable to hold you hostage.  It just doesn't work long term.

As noted earlier, no assistant coach in the country is worth the kind of grief that Lupoi caused with his actions.  He lacks character and integrity (please reference his one game suspension for conduct unbecoming a college coach).  The guy is a budding Bobby Petrino (less the philandering aspect of his life) - a good coach and recruiter but the kind of guy who causes you to cringe when his name is raised...

I prefer to take the high road and leave the squalor to schools like UW...

Re: Meanwhile, across the Bay... - 71Bear - 04-20-2012

Terry...

Barbour turned UCBerkeley football into a carnival.  The shameless huckstering of dog food, gasoline and other products in lieu of the band during breaks in the action totally turned me off.  If I wanted commercialism, I would simply buy 49er tix. 

Add to that the financial mess she has created through the stadium renovation and I lost all interest in supporting the program.  As Yvonne noted, many people have been turned off by the recent developments. 

Quite frankly, college sports have taken a decided turn for the worse in the last couple of years.  The TV deals, the scandals, the laughable sham of suggesting that academics are still important, the ridiculous coaching salaries have all played a role in ruining the game as we knew it. 

No thanks to Friday night or Thursday night games and Big Games in October.  Instead, I am much more interested in the Niners - heck at least they acknowledge they are professionals (unlike the semi-pros playing at the next level down).



Re: Meanwhile, across the Bay... - CompSci87 - 04-20-2012

(04-20-2012, 10:06 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=5836.msg43087#msg43087 date=1334937405]
You're ignoring the political cost of keeping Lupoi.  In addition to the of extremely large proportions tuition increases, the UC system has also implemented a lot of budget cuts that have really hurt faculty and staff.  So the students and parents are feeling like they're getting totally screwed financially, the faculty and staff are feeling like they're getting totally screwed financially -- and in that atmosphere, you're advocating giving a of extremely large proportions raise to a total douchebag, when athletics is already losing money hand over fist?  Even if it were a great idea from a purely financial standpoint, you'll never get everyone else to believe that, so from the standpoint of university politics it would have been a disaster.

It's not like Lupoi's salary would be coming from the state budget.  Private donors would have paid the cost, just like Tedsel's contract.  That said, your point is well-taken.
[/quote]

Basically, money is money. If there is any pipe connecting two pots of money, they aren't really different. If money from private donors would have paid Lupoi's salary, then in Lupoi's absence that money can help pay for the stadium or other athletic department expenses instead, thus reducing the amount of money the athletic department needs to pull out of the general fund to cover its deficit. Or running it the other way, getting money from private donors to pay for a Lupoi salary increase would mean that money was not available to pay for the stadium, etc., thus increasing the athletic department's deficit.

Well, unless you're positing that there are donors out there who love Lupoi so much that they would have given money earmarked for his salary if he'd stayed, but will keep that money in their wallets now that he's gone.

Re: Meanwhile, across the Bay...I'm curious - doug - 04-20-2012

There is much discussion in this thread regarding the apparently irresistible "need" to pay $5 m. annual salaries for head football coaches and $1 m.+ salaries to top assistants. How many on this board believe this is a necessary and inevitable recognition of reality? I, for one, believe it is a complete outrage. I enjoy Stanford football and all Stanford athletics, but I would rather Stanford drop down to the Ivy or D-III model than have its football coach make 5-8x's the salary of the University president. Joe Paterno was a cautionary tale in this regard (and I can make the case that Paterno's ethics aligned better in most respects with the academic mission of a university than most D-I football coaches' ethics do). I have had this disagreement with a number of people whose usual response is that $5 m. is simply the price established by "the market" for a top coach, as if that insulates this unacceptable practice from my challenging the ethics of it. To me, this response is simply capitulating to the inevitable degradation of fundamental and important standards that results from our acceptance as a society of the increasing professionalization of sport which we have allowed/enabled. I don't accept that a university, much less a great university, should be considered bound to engage in such a "market" for an endeavor so peripheral to its core academic mission. 

Re: Meanwhile, across the Bay... - Farm93 - 04-20-2012

The football salaries are already super high in other conferences, and the Pac-10 was losing recruits, coaches and games in football, basketball and even non-revenue sports because it was losing an arms race.  UW's talent hunt may outrage UC at B fans today, but UW is getting him on the cheap relative to 2012 SEC money.

The Pac-"12" was built on the idea of getting more money, so I simply believe the conference members will now pay up for talent.  After all, that was the plan.

Student study centers filled with TVs, video games, and expensive leather chairs
Football head coach salaries up in the current UTexas/LSU/Bama/Ohio State/Florida/Auburn level
Football assistant coaches consistent with that that current tier too.
Oh, and a few extra bucks to snazzy up the women's gymnastic and softball team uniforms.

It will be very interesting to see if Stanford chases the dream, or if it says no.

I guess I am ready for the 2013 & 2014 reality, and am preparing for the idea that I might one day be cheering as the Stanford "Knights" storm through the Google Gateway to the Schwab Sideline as the LSJU Wells Fargo Band blasts songs to the delight of the fans in the Safeway and Chevron levels of Stanford's "Cisco" Stadium.

Re: Meanwhile, across the Bay... - 71Bear - 04-20-2012

(04-20-2012, 03:37 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:I guess I am ready for the 2013 & 2014 reality, and am preparing for the idea that I might one day be cheering as the Stanford "Knights" storm through the Google Gateway to the Schwab Sideline as the LSJU Wells Fargo Band blasts songs to the delight of the fans in the Safeway and Chevron levels of Stanford's "Cisco" Stadium.

My Alma Mater already has gone down that road with Chevron car chases, some dog food sponsoring "the cutest pet in UCBerkeley apparel" and a myriad of other clutter. 

There is a easy solution - just say no by your withholding financial support.

Re: Meanwhile, across the Bay... - Nan3cy - 04-20-2012

Love the thought of a study center filled with TVs and video games... If I were in college today I'd probably never make it through (though I might have better hand-eye coordination).