As usual, the achiever forced to subsidize the underachiever. So predictable. https://www.espn.com/college-footba...-approve-ucla-big-ten-move-include-conditions
UCLA forced to subsidize UCB
- Thread starter 11NCs
- Start date
EXACTLY what Beach and several here suggested would be the outcome. The regents had no power to disapprove the move by UCLA to the Big Ten, as this power rests with the UCLA Chancellor, but they do have the authority over the UC Budget Process and allocation decisions.
we still have many friends that live there live there and one in particular refers to it as the communist country of California with comrade Gruesome in charge.
so. California born. so. California bred. so. California forever. Same with my entire family.
Nirvana IMO.
Yeah I don't get the angst. UCLA is a government entity. It is an 'achiever' because the Cali government decided it would be a major university many years ago before the others.
As a gov entity UCLA exists to serve the people of Cali, not its own wallet.
I don't have a problem with this. UCLA (a state-sponsored institution) is bolting for more money and leaving their sister institution behind. So they probably should have to pay to subsidize their sister school a little. They're not a private institution. USC, on the other hand, can do whatever they want as a private institution.
California subsidizes all those poor red States in the South too. maybe they should start pulling their own weight?
Well the question is how does California distribute tax payers dollars in support of its state universities? And does each state universities athletic department self fund it's operations from just the revenue each generates? I don't live in CA, so I don't know the answers to those questions. As for payer states vs. Taker states, CA is a payer state and Mississippi is a taker. NY is a payer and Kentucky is a taker and on and on.
