<p>
</p>
<p>That was Berkeley. They were cutting sports because their athletic program was hemorrhaging money. The same is not true of UCLA.</p>
<p>^^^
Thanks! I knew it was a UC school, but didn’t remember which.</p>
<p>I don’t like sports, that being said, those football players do not get paid to play and they provide a lot of entertainment for many people, to let them stay at a nice hotel is the least a school could do.</p>
<p>MomofWildChild, I don’t think you have to be a sports-hater to believe that in some cases, sports programs can get too big and too powerful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you would have asked the question in a rational manner instead of using expletives.</p>
<p>This thread is more about UCLA-USC rivalry than anything else. Trust me.</p>
<p>wow. not much goin on up in menlo park today, i reckon.</p>
<p>
I have to say that “pathetic” was the word that occurred to me, too. Presumably, they have meeting rooms and training facilities and dining halls on campus, so the only reason I can see for this is to control these supposedly “adult” players the night before the big game. If they really need to do this, well, that’s pretty pathetic, in my view.</p>
<p>Just because a player can be disciplined on a Friday night doesn’t mean those on his floor or even room are. These players do not have segregated floors in the residence halls…</p>
<p>"This thread is more about UCLA-USC rivalry than anything else. Trust me. " </p>
<p>Uh, no… I personally could care less about the USC/ UCLA rivalry. Stanford and Cal, thats a different story. And I dont see Cals football team being sequestered in a hotel near Stanford, or vice versa when those 2 teams play each other each year in the Big Game. [Those 2 stadiums are the same distance apart from each other as the Rose Bowl and the LA coluseum, btw. ]
Its about excessive funding of one college program at a Public U , for what ever reasons, and from what ever sources, when the rest of the U is suffering. And it could be about any program at any UC or any public U for that matter. </p>
<p>Put it another way, it would be like a appendage receiving more nourishment than it needed, while the rest of the body is starved. </p>
<p>[I do care about football and the 49ers, in particular. We have been season ticket holders for 30+ years]</p>
<p>“If they really need to do this, well, that’s pretty pathetic, in my view.”
I totally agree. The hotel they were staying at was NO CLOSER to the Coliseum than the UCLA campus.</p>
<p>I actually find it “pathetic” that adults are feeling free to rag on the athletes. Every athletic team, I’m sure, whether male/female, revenue or non revenue has their way of doing things/assessing travel needs,etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would almost guarentee that both teams stay at a hotel in an “away” game like that and that they likely use that same hotel for their home games. Many (probably all) FBS schools take their players to a hotel the night before a football game.</p>
<p>My alma mater used to take the football team 30 miles away the night before a home game. NCAA rules and budget cuts eliminated that although there is talk of the NCAA allowing it again…</p>
<p>honestly what is the big deal? We are talking about ~$20K (assuming the team doesnt get a discount from the standard $200 / night rate and players double up on rooms as is common). These universities see these programs as huge profit centers and the ROI on these investments are huge. Plus It’s not like they stayed at that nice of a hotel…give me a break the Langham Pasadena is average to say the least…</p>
<p>These football programs not only bring in a lot of $$ to the university but they also help build up the universities reputation on a national level, which increases applicants, which makes the school more selective, which attracts better professors, which develops better students, which become more successful alum, which donate more $$. It’s a virtuous cycle…honestly without these programs and the national reputation they build these schools would not be where they are today…just look at the other UCs that don’t have athletic programs at this level…Davis, Riverside, Merced, etc etc. No one outside of California (and well CC 
) knows what they are, they don’t have the alumni financial support that UCLA and UCB have and honestly don’t provide the same quality of education that UCB and UCLA do…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but a publicly traded company has an obligation to shareholders not to waste money and to be responsible. Not all that much different.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>We are not talking mere theory here. Athletic departments ALREADY pull money away from academic departments. That’s why it is a problem in times of tight money. As the link in post #13 shows, only 10% of the 218 Div I public universities operate in the black. The rest are a drain on the schools’ general fund - money that could be going to academic departments. </p>
<p>UC and Cal State students have noisily and repeatedly in recent years staged sit-ins and protests at Regents and other university senior leadership meetings. Why? It’s not because they want better or more perks for their football players. It’s because their own tuition and fees have been repeatedly raised - with no end in sight. It’s because the schools’ academic budgets have been slashed so much that classes they need for graduation are being cancelled, delaying their graduations.</p>
<p>That’s the current environment for the public college students in CA. And that’s why unnecessarily spending money, even modest amounts of money, to stay in a hotel in your OWN TOWN is tone deaf to the plight of the regular students.</p>
<p>And if the argument is that this expense was necessary because the players otherwise cannot be trusted to stay in their rooms and out of trouble on the night before the Big Game of all nights, then that’s a much bigger indictment of the state of college football than any sort of financial argument.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Guess what-- football is one expense that at least supports itself to some degree. Other activities on campus make ZERO money and costs tons to support. I’ll bet not many drama facilities bring in money to campus. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See my statement above regarding that. Much more likely it has more to do with those partying AROUND the players than the players themselves.</p>
<p>^ Totally agree with MomofWildChild…a company has an obligation to its shareholders to not waste money so its not different at all from a pub university. But again it comes down to the return you will get on your investment…for example, over the past month (I also work at a publically traded company) I’ve racked up ~$40K in travel expenses for a project I’ve been working on…most shareholders would think that this is outrageous but that said in the end the project was able to save the company $80M in costs. It’s the same for these programs…they spend a few million each year in costs but bring in hundreds of millions for the university.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep… mere theory.</p>
<p>they also help build up the universities reputation on a national level, which increases applicants, which makes the school more selective’,
"yadda, yadda’ . This may be correct for private U’s, but its irrelevant for the UC system, which doesn’t have enough room or funding to educate qualified, eligible Calif students.
The UC’s were created and funded by the taxpayers of Calif to educate Calif students. Not students from other states. Being highly selective or desirable to OOS students is irrelevant to the purpose of the UC system. And neither U is in need of a reputation boost- they have great academic reputations, particularly at the Graduate school level. Which they need to maintain, but are loosing ground these because of budget cuts. </p>
<p>"which attracts better professors "</p>
<p>Not these days. Overall funding cuts means that UC profs are now earning substantially LESS than their peers at Private U’s. And both U"s are losing profs- who are voting with their feet and leaving for better funded academic programs at private U’s. Who is hired in their place? Adjunct , non permanent, low paid profs.</p>
<p>“Other activities on campus make ZERO money and costs tons to support”
Guess what- the purpose of a Public U is NOT to make a PROFIT, it is to educate the students of that state. And that costs money. Which is why the taxpayers of those states are usually willing to support that goal- THAT is the “profit” or ROI, that is EXPECTED for supporting a Public U with taxpayer funds.
These days, the Calif taxpayers are NOT getting their money’s worth from the UC system. But its OK to coddle some students, who receive athletic scholarships and posh lodging at a ritzy hotel a few miles from campus, when other Calif UC students can’t afford to pay ever increasing tuition payments? I dont think so…</p>