Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dimitri Dorlis's avatar

So I get an email whenever anyone comments on this article, and I'm starting to get annoyed at the general tenor of conversation here. So I'm going to issue a general warning: if you cannot have a conversation without resorting to name calling or taking pot shots at other users, then maybe you should consider refraining from posting here until you go outside and touch some grass. This is not Twitter, no matter how much you might want to treat it that way.

Expand full comment
Bruinette88's avatar

IMO, moving to the Big 10 is a poor outcome for our non-revenue sports. For most of these sports, joining the Big 10 is a genuine step down in quality of competition. This applies particularly to sports like softball and baseball, tennis (men's and women's), golf (men's and women's), and soccer (men's and women's).

I do not believe that our non-revenue sports will see any substantial funding benefit from a move to the Big Ten. There is nothing in recent history at UCLA (or elsewhere, frankly) to suggest that revenue boosts significantly benefit non-revenue sports. However, I might be convinced otherwise if UCLA promptly reinstates the men's swimming and men's gymnastics programs that were eliminated in the mid-90s. That said, given the reality of the financial malpractice in the UCLA Athletic Department, it's unlikely that any programs will be revived any time soon.

It appears the interests of the majority of our student-athletes are not clearly well-served by this decision. As expected, UCLA Athletics sets revenue as its priority and largely disregards the principles of its mission statement.

Expand full comment
108 more comments...

No posts