Why did the ucla football team stay at an expensive hotel last night??

<p>If staying in a hotel before a game is so crucial for the football team, next year the UCLA team should look into booking whichever hotel USC used this year. The Trojans appear to have showed up much better rested, focused, and ready to play.</p>

<p>I think putting players in a hotel the night before a game is common. Last week while I was at a pretty expensive hotel, I saw some football players from a local regional university at a hotel too, even though they hardly make the same amount of money as UCLA players do. Apparently, the reason for this is that this prevents the players from going out and partying too much over the course of the night and it makes sure they are well rested for the game.</p>

<p>^^And that would be fine, but there are LOTS of other less pricy, posh hotels in LA that serve the same purpose. This one is like the Ritz [ which in fact is what it used to be] </p>

<p>“It WAS an away-game”. </p>

<p>Oh please. It was in LA, their home town. They didn’t have to fly in the night before to get to the game.</p>

<p>quote: </p>

<p>“Apparently, the reason for this is that this prevents the players from going out and partying too much over the course of the night and it makes sure they are well rested for the game.”</p>

<p>It’s amazing how the dancers in a ballet company don’t need to stay in a hotel together before opening night in their home season, yet they still manage to give an excellent performance. No hall monitors needed to make sure they behave. Their average ages would typically be between 16 and 22. </p>

<p>But football is so much more… important…? Athletes are pathetic if they have such little self-discipline that they can’t be trusted not to get wasted or whatever before the big game.</p>

<p>since football tickets and football television revenue paid for the hotel, why does anyone care so much? It’s not like the $$ came from UC’s educational funds. </p>

<p>UCLA and Cal play big time, d1, football and that is just part of the ‘deal’. The other campuses choose not have big time football.</p>

<p>Now, if you want to argue that Cal and UCLA should drop out of the Pac12, that is a different topic. But complaining about a couple of thousand dollars out of a budget of $60+ million is hard for me to understand.</p>

<p>^^^ I agree. If I thought that somehow this money is being diverted from the school’s educational mission, I guess it would bother me. But it isn’t, so it doesn’t. It is silly that these athletes can’t be trusted to just stay in and be game ready, but it’s no skin off my nose.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But it’s a way for the sports haters to complain…</p>

<p>That’s all they wanted to do here; a logical answer wasn’t needed or wanted…</p>

<p>why does anyone care so much?</p>

<p>mini said it best-the blatant tone deafness of a public, [not private], U spending $$ on a fancy LOCAL hotel for its football players, and at the same time claiming that tuition $ must be raised for all students due to huge budget shortfalls, thats why. I’m a Calif tax payer, and If the UC system is in financial trouble, then I see NO reason that ALL programs should not be required to review their income and expenditures. The football program does not stand on its own- its part of a public [ taxpayer funded] University, regardless of how rich and oblivious its football Boosters are.</p>

<p>and by the way, it is irrelevant what sport, or program we are talking about here- every program should be subject to financial review when there are system wide financial cutbacks and shortdfalls- or do some actually think that “college” sports would mean anything without the “college”?</p>

<p>It means that there is a part of the university that is rolling in dough, as other folks have said, with those funds segregated from university operations, but using the university’s name.</p>

<p>^^And that would be fine, if the other parts of the UC University system werent suffering financially. But they are. So the attitude that athletes should be coddled, or their funding should considered separately, during these financially tenuous times, strikes me as a “let them eat cake” sort of attitude.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So one department should be able to pull money away from another department? Maybe that department that is suffering needs to step up the donation drive…</p>

<p>Since not all athletic departments make money, are you fine if the athletic department pulls money away from another group on campus? If the fine arts department gets a donation of $1million, the football team is entitled to $100k, right?</p>

<p>So one department should be able to pull money away from another department?
absloutely, this is a UNIVERSITY, whose purpose is to educate the students, not a training camp for highly paid future professional athletes, after all. </p>

<p>College football teams do not stand on their own, nor are they the reason that the UC system has the reputation it does have. Look to Penn State for an example of a Football program that ended up being more important than the University itself in too many peoples minds- so important that it could ignore and cover up a scandal within the program for decades.Why was this possible? Cause no one wanted to look deeper. Everyone who knew something looked the other way, because the football program had become too important for anyone to want to rock the boat.</p>

<p>Yep- just another sports-hater thread.</p>

<p>As was said above, I think you would be surprised at just how low the hotel rate probably was. Team, conference, group rates can be a fraction of posted rate. My last company’s board of directors stayed at a very posh hotel because we got a rate that was much lower than the Doubletree next to our office!</p>

<p>no I’m not a sports hater. this thread is about how PUBLIC, Taxpayer supported Universities spend their $$$. </p>

<p>"My last company’s board of directors stayed at a very posh hotel because we got a rate that was much lower than the Doubletree next to our office! "
Your company is not a public university.</p>

<p>I have a feeling it is highly unlikely for football fever to take over UCLA after last night’s game. Next year the team probably will be staying at Motel 6! My husband made me turn off the game so he could watch “Cops”.
That being said, I believe the money generated by football through booster donations, TV fees, clothing sales, etc. helps pay for some of the other athletic programs on campus, especially women’s sports, which generate no income. Whether anyone can stand to watch the Bruins after the USC debacle remains to be seen. The PAC12 “championship” game versus Oregon is going to be agonizingly painful (spoken by a Bruin and mom of Bruin)!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Ah but you didn’t answer my second question. Are you fine with the athletic department pulling money away from another department? Or is it a one-way street?</p>

<p>And there is plenty of education that goes on in an athletic department, but people don’t want to admit to that.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>There’s a difference between allowing a self-funded program to spend money the same way self-funded programs at a large number of other schools spend money and enabling sexual abuse of children.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>they spend it the same way PRIVATE, Taxpayer supported Universities spend their money.</p>

<p>BFD</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Perhaps that was your intent, but it is based on an incorrect assumption. The money spent is not “public” money. The money spent is privately-raised, by donors and tickets sales. If UCLA did not have a football team, this $$ would not exist. Heck, if UCLA did not have a football team, it would have to eliminate most of the other sports, including women’s sports.</p>

<p>Years ago, faculty and others raised the issue about athletics receiving general university funds. At the time, UC told the athletic departments that they had to become self-funding or cease to exist. Now that they are essentially self-funding… :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Because, like at other big football schools, the program does not live by the same rules as the rest of the institution. There is a sense of entitlement, and a sense that “We can get away with anything. We’re football!”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Heck, if I recall correctly, they tried to eliminate numerous other sports in the last year or two. I think a couple of sports (baseball for one) were saved because they were able to get donors to pick up the tab!</p>