[Farm93]

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.

[Farm93]

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.