<p>It’s not at all uncommon for the home team to spend the night before a game together in a local hotel, at least in the bigger programs. It’s easier to enforce curfew, the coaches don’t want the players to have any distractions, and they want the players to be well rested and all accounted for in the morning. Coaches also believe it builds team camaraderie. I have to believe at a school like UCLA football more than pays for itself, so paying the bill for 12 hotel stays a year is just not that big a deal, especially because they can book well in advance, probably get a big bulk discount for that many rooms, double up 2-to-a room, and, especially at a local hotel, maybe get an extra discount if the hotel manager is a booster or just wants the added cachet of having the football team stay at that property. And it’s not as if that money is coming out of faculty salaries or library acquisitions; as others have said, the athletic department budget is usually separate from the rest of the university’s operating budget. If anyone has a complaint about excessive football expenditures, it’s people involved in the non-revenue sports, who may face cuts if football’s surplus isn’t big enough to fully support them. But no AD is going to take that complaint very seriously: the non-revenue sports that represent a net drain on the athletic department budget complaining that football is spending too much, when it’s football’s surplus that is keeping the whole athletic department afloat? I don’t think so. That’s just a non-starter.</p>
<p>the issue here is NOT one sports program vrs another. The question is how much is appropriate or even PC to continue to spend on extras[ regardless of where the $$ comes from], such as ritzy hotels when there are other less expensive alternatives, when the entire university system is facing severe cutbacks across all levels and depts.
Some rooters here cant seem to grasp that their argument that “the football program extras are all funded by outside funds” misses the point. If the U that supports their program falters or becomes less desirable to students[ including student athletes, who currently receive athletic scholarships], it pulls all programs down with it. </p>
<p>the argument that rich sports programs should be immune to budget cuts that the university is experiencing, is analogous to rich patrons on the Titanic continuing to demand they be served High Tea in their staterooms while their ship was starting to go down…</p>
<p>The ship is going down either way, so why ***** about private funding for football? Go raise some money for academics.</p>
<p>^oh if only I could. You willing to donate barrons? and there is no need to be rude, nor to continue to follow this thread if it ****es you off so much…</p>
<p>menloparkmom,
If the team had stayed at a Holiday Inn near SC for the same price they paid at the Langham, would you have started this thread?</p>
<p>First- a group rate at the Holiday Inn would never be the same price as a group rate at Langham. The cost of the buffet breakfast alone is $35 at the Langham. Are you seriously suggesting that it would be the same cost at a Holiday Inn? Really? I’ve traveled enough, and at group rates, to know you dont get the same type of accommodation at a “Holiday Inn” type of accommodation as at a luxury 5 star hotel.</p>
<p>As others have noted, most lower budget hotels are not equipped to handle a football team. The Langham is only 189 a night next Friday. That is cheap for a “luxury 5 star hotel.” The team may have gotten a rate lower than that. I’m still confused as to why this is such an issue for you. I would think a California resident would be happy to have their state schools like UCLA be so well regarded nationally.</p>
<p>I found the Radisson near USC at $110/nt government rate, and the Langham is now selling double rooms at $151/nt double, but no government rate shown. So, $40/nt difference…</p>
<p>"Some rooters here cant seem to grasp that their argument that “the football program extras are all funded by outside funds” misses the point. "</p>
<p>I’m just having a problem seeing how people funding the UCLA football players stay at a hotel the night before the big game is any different than people buying cruises to Mexico or people spending money on ice cream. None of those people would otherwise give that money to academics at UCLA, or any other school for that matter. If anything, the taxes from people spending on anything, even frivolous things, adds to the state coffers, so some of that money might be used for state schools.</p>
<p>As much as I may have my opinions on how others spend their money, when it’s private money, I don’t get a vote.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure that is all so clear cut. There are plenty of colleges that do quite well in sports, but are not considered academic stars. (I won’t point them out…lol)</p>
<p>OTOH, if the ship is indeed sinking, and the Regents/Legislature continue to allow it to freefall, a few thousand dollars from the athletic department, which is not even a rounding error in UCLA overall budget, won’t plug the hole created by the glacier. (But more importantly, the Bruins should’ve saved the cash to buyout Neuheisel).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually the question is rather what is considered an extra. A hotel room the night before a game, in my opinion, is not considered an extra and is standard operating procedure for any serious athletic organization. If you consider it an extra because they stayed at an expensive hotel then I can assure you that you have not worked or spent time in the hospitality industry. As a side investment I own a few hotels and can assure you that most of the hotels that you are thinking about in terms of cost (i.e. where you probably stay when you go on vacation kind of hotels) do not have the capabilities to facilitate / coordinate a group of more than 150 players and staff in terms of F&B and facilities (rooms yes but not other facilities) this means that the school has to identify other alternatives to suit their needs. With a $200 per night rack rate, a standard discount for this type of group would be ~20%…add in the additional ~$50 / head in F&B (which is btw where most of their margin is probably coming from) you are talking about $19.5K as most of these teams double up on rooms. I can guarantee you that the person responsible for booking all the team’s travel didn’t sit there and say “oh what is the fanciest place i can book…” most likely they tried to find the most cost effective hotel that had the availability in terms of rooms and the F&B / facility capablities to host a group of that size. In the end he or she has a budget number that they can’t exceed.</p>
<p>Not that this is applicable to either of my kids, that’s for sure, but if my kid were traveling on behalf of the college (whether for athletics, or for something else, like, oh, I don’t know, debate), I sure would expect them to be put up at a decent hotel, and not some Motel 6 type of place.</p>
<p>Perhaps UCLA stays at this hotel for home games as well…it would not surprise me.
UCLA likely gets a big discount and may have some connections with hotel management.</p>
<p>Rose Bowl teams stay at the Century Plaza…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why does it have to be dependent? I’m a journalism major and I’m getting a lot out of the fact that we have athletics. I’m covering one of our teams for a major website, as a student. It is great experience for me and will look great on my resume when I look for a job. School sports teams (revenue OR non-revenue) provide student journalists with many opportunities. I am an aspiring sports journalist - if my school did not have athletics where would that leave me? In that way I think you could actually say I AM kind of dependent on it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…which is now offering a government rate of only $123/nt!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s look at this in another direction since it’s been touched on but mentioned specifically… Dropping football would mean the university would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars IN SCHOLARSHIPS ALONE. The athletic departments are actually paying the university for those tuition dollars…</p>
<p>athletic scholarships mean the university is giving away a college education for FREE. Tuition money DOES go into the general fund. And since you are the one who said there is no commingling of athletic funds and general funds, then it stands to reason that the U is LOSING money if they offer athletes fat discounts. </p>
<p>I think this thread has run its course.</p>
<p>I’m not in favor of colleges dropping football. I think it’s a generally a good thing. But I don’t believe in the tail wagging the dog, and football is definitely the tail here. </p>
<p>You can kid yourselves all you want with talk about PE or Sports Training majors, but that won’t change football (or basketball, or cross country, or swimming, or lacrosse, etc) from a Saturday afternoon diversion into a legitimate academic subject. And as such it stands outside the purpose for which universities exist. College sports are fun but they are a sideshow and should be treated as such.</p>
<p>My preference would be for college football to be handled the way it was at UC Davis while I was there. It was a Div II program then (which has since gotten dazzled by the bright lights, developed delusions of grandeur, and gone over to Div I). And it didn’t give athletics scholarships. The players were students first and foremost. They had to meet the same academic standards for admission as all the other students. And there were no crib courses designed for the purpose of keeping them eligible. They had to take and pass the same real courses as the rest of the kids. They were not cloistered away from the rest of the students in special dorms or given special perks. </p>
<p>Despite these seeming handicaps they were football powerhouses in their conference. They regularly crushed their traditional big rival, Sacramento State, even though Sac State gave their players athletic scholarships. UC Davis contended for the Div II national title every year I was there and made it to the championship final in 1982. They even had players make it in the NFL from time to time. But the concept of “One and Done” or otherwise going pro early simply did not exist. These guys were real college students, not NFL apprentices.</p>
<p>More importantly than this was the place that football had in the life and identity of the college. It was fun to cheer for the team on Saturday, and everyone hoped they would win, but no one viewed the place as a “football school.” Football served the interests of the school and not the other way around. The tail didn’t wag the dog.</p>
<p>Not every student athlete is on a full scholarship…you’d be surprised how many are only on a partial one and actually are paying for most of their tuition. Football teams get 85, but a roster may have 100 players. For non-revenue sports this is especially true - for example, a lacrosse team only gets 12 but usually has 30+ players. I know someone on the women’s soccer team at her major D1 university who is only getting 10% of her tuition paid for.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, my degree doesn’t matter. It does require athletics in order for me to get the clinical experiences much like a nurse requires a hospital.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your first sentence is true. But football teams at the FBS level are given 85 scholarships and those go to exactly 85 student-athletes. At the FCS they have 63 scholarships and there they can give out pieces for up to a certain number of players.</p>