05-25-2017, 12:42 PM
The UCLA cuts were 20+ years ago now. Back in the day, the UCs were told to get their financial act together or else!
UCLA actually went through the pain of cutting very successful programs that were expensive to run and has maintained a reasonably solid financial organization over the last 30 years. Oh, and FWIW - they have been winning NCAA team titles, playing in the Rose Bowl game from time to time, etc.
UCB cried a complained. Annually they rely upon discretionary funding from various UC Regents' sources. One could argue that getting money from the Regents' slush funds each year means they are clever as they get to spend more and field more teams than their UCB community actually wants to support financially. However, as a taxpayer with HS age kids I sure would like those Regents' discretionary funds to go to things other than UCB AD annual bailouts. And FWIW - the UCB AD has 0 Rose Bowl game appearances over the last 30 years.
Budget discipline and better results on the field? That's enough for me to conclude UCLA's AD is a better run organization.
UCLA actually went through the pain of cutting very successful programs that were expensive to run and has maintained a reasonably solid financial organization over the last 30 years. Oh, and FWIW - they have been winning NCAA team titles, playing in the Rose Bowl game from time to time, etc.
UCB cried a complained. Annually they rely upon discretionary funding from various UC Regents' sources. One could argue that getting money from the Regents' slush funds each year means they are clever as they get to spend more and field more teams than their UCB community actually wants to support financially. However, as a taxpayer with HS age kids I sure would like those Regents' discretionary funds to go to things other than UCB AD annual bailouts. And FWIW - the UCB AD has 0 Rose Bowl game appearances over the last 30 years.
Budget discipline and better results on the field? That's enough for me to conclude UCLA's AD is a better run organization.