In Reply to: Last night I was talking about how crazy college football has gotten. posted by hotspot on September 04, 2026 at 07:31:32
should've told Newsom and All the Regents what we were contemplating early on, but not ask for permission, so he/they didn't end up being uninformed and pissed off. Newsom "I have strong opinions about this, for no other reason than as a member of the regents, we were never consulted, never asked for an opinion, and they didn’t even have the decency to provide (a) heads-up.” Not totally accurate, we did tell UC President Michael Drake and a small handful of regents at the last minute.
And Gene Block didn't help our cause when he said "From the very beginning we said we understand we may need to help Berkeley. We're OK with it (paying Calimony) and happy it is resolved," Block said after the regents approved the move. Way to fight Gene!
By the end of the 2026-27 year, we'll have given Cal $30MM. The Regents will review this payment structure, likely next year, to see if it needs to be increased, decreased eliminated. We do receive much more from the B10 (about $76MM/yr plus bowl shares) than Cal receives from the ACC ($22.9MM/yr in overall distributions from the ACC). Its highly likely that when the Regents vote again on this matter, we'll end up paying Cal again. Remember, when this issue went for a Regents vote in 2024, it was 7-1 in favor of Cal. Hopefully Harris we'll bring up the recent disparity between what Cal raises in Athletic Dept. pledges, donations, $170MM over the past 2 years to UCLA's approximate (I guessed) $71MM over the past 2 years and use that data to eliminate (I can hope) or reduce future Calimony.