Please Support Cal!

Colleges & Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
1

<p>If you care about the University and its athletics program, please take 30 secs to add your name to this petition supporting the renovations and construction of the new athletic facilities, which will serve student-athletes from 13 teams on campus and preserve and extend the huge momentum that Cal football has built under coach Tedford.</p>

<p>This project is also crucial in terms of safety of the student-athletes and staff, as they currently work inside the seismically hazardous structure of Memorial Stadium.</p>

<p>The project is being obstructed by a group of very vocal opponents on very flimsy environmental grounds. Most of these opponents aren't part of the campus or even Berkeley community.</p>

<p>Join the over 3,000 Cal supporters who have signed in the first 2 days alone:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?callfb07%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?callfb07&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Go Bears.</p>

2

<p>PS: Prospective Cal applicants' signatures are welcome (good Cal karma!)</p>

3

<p>Build those facilities. Go Bears!</p>

4

<p>Don't sign! Save the Oaks!</p>

<p><a href="http://www.saveoaks.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.saveoaks.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

5

<p>Sign up! Screw the Oaks!</p>

6

<p>OMG... Read the inititive!!!!! Cal is going to replace every oak they take down by planting 3 new trees. Besides we need the new facilities more than those oak trees. Sign the petition!!!!!
Go Bears!!</p>

7

<p>Save Berkeley, Fight the University! Save the Oaks!</p>

8

<p>Are you a student or alumnus dobby?</p>

<p>Their argument are total BS BTW...</p>

9

<p>I support the renovation</p>

10

<p>dobby, I guess you're joking, right?</p>

<p>RIGHT?</p>

11

<p>Dobby is a current (first year) student, ... and unfortunately I think serious...</p>

12

<p>I'd be really interested to find out more about his/her position.</p>

13

<p>lol it's kinda funny, 'cause Berkeleyans are supposedly the "hippy, tree-hugger" kind. xD</p>

14

<p>I also want to know why anyone would want to sit in a tree in freezing weather.</p>

<p>We can always use forcible eviction. That should be...interesting.</p>

15

<p>Forget its environmental impact, there's better reasons why the facility shouldn't be built. Most important of all, it doesn't contribute to Berkeley's overall wellness. The atheletic program is pretty good as it is. I think it'd be better if Berkeley spent on other, more important and underfunded issues, like: </p>

<ul>
<li>better pay for faculty</li>
<li>better ugrad advising</li>
<li>seismic retrofiting</li>
<li>more financial aid</li>
<li>ugrad research</li>
<li>smaller classes</li>
<li>better classrooms</li>
<li>more dorms</li>
<li>better dorms</li>
<li>lowered fees</li>
<li>improved food</li>
<li>better grad housing</li>
<li>safer campus and city</li>
<li>etc</li>
</ul>

16

<p>Better athletic facilities will attract more 1st class athletes which will better the overall Athletic program which will in turn increase donations to the University and provide more funding to the items on your list.</p>

17

<p>Dobby, the financial argument against the athletic facilities project is moot, because:</p>

<p>1- the <em>entire</em> cost of the new facilities will be paid by donors/alumni.</p>

<p>2- the athletic department as a whole had been running huge annual deficits (high seven figures to low eight figures), mostly because Cal has a relatively large number of student-athletes, even for a big university on the cost side, and on the revenue side it has had relatively little athletic success and its athletic receipts had been correspondingly puny. That deficit was paid by the University.</p>

<p>Tedford's success on the field has translated into a net increase in income in the low eight figures (over $10 millions/yr), even accounting for his large salary.</p>

<p>If anything, the new facilities will help the athletic department's bottom line, which will help the university as a whole as UCB has been underwriting its athletic dept's deficit in the past. AD revenues pay for the scholarships of hundreds of student-athletes. </p>

<p>You say "The athletic program is pretty good as it is", but we cannot maintain athletic and financial success without the new facilities. It's sink or swim.</p>

<p>I also strongly disagree about the athletic programs not "contributing to Berkeley's overall wellness". The football and basketball program serve very important function in the culture and spirit of our campus and in helping bring together the student and campus community, building common grounds, school spirit and a communal experience. This is particularly important at Cal, which has an urban campus and a very diverse student body.</p>

<p>Three years ago, I attended the wedding of a close friend, a Cal alumni, who married another friend of mine, a French woman who lived in SF and studied at UCSB. I realized then that the wedding wouldn't have been possible without Cal Football. I had met my friend while doing my MBA at Haas, he sat next to me during a Cal football game. He later attended one of my parties where he met my French friend who was on school break from UCSB. He was an undergrad in the Civ Eng dept, we most probably wouldn't have had a chance to interact and build a long friendship outside the bleachers of the student section. </p>

<p>Seismic retrofitting, an important subject you have brought up, is addressed by the project, at no cost to the University.</p>

18

<p>dobby,</p>

<p>Better sports facilities and academic spending aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and it doesn't have to be a zero sum game as you present it (in a somewhat "strawman-like fashion, I might add...) While Berkeley in the past did hemorrhage money due to sports spending, the rise of a successful football program may help to draw better athletes and media attention.</p>

<p>I think it's hard to argue that Duke, Michigan, Stanford, UCLA, and North Carolina don't benefit a great deal from their sports programs a great deal, both in notoriety and in money. </p>

<p>Furthermore, it provides opportunities for more students to receive scholarships and want to come to Cal. As it stands, I'm sure that Cal is losing fantastic talent to Stanford, UCLA, and USC in California alone. By developing better sports programs, you keep them where (at least from your perspective) they belong-- at Cal.</p>

<p>CalX,</p>

<p>Of course, this should be carefully weighted against other possibilities. "Saving the oaks" is just reactionary rhetoric typical of undergrads, but what of the long-term contractual obligations with spending? Best I can tell, this will be a campus-wide boon, but you never know... athletics departments are pretty covetous (as they should be) of funding they receive. </p>

<p>All in all, I think it's a great plan for a great university that couldn't come at a better time. Tedford's been a true Cal hero...</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
Better athletic facilities will attract more 1st class athletes which will better the overall Athletic program which will in turn increase donations to the University and provide more funding to the items on your list.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So what? I can just as easily point out that having an overall better ugrad program "will in turn increase donations to the University and provide more funding to the items on" the list. What I want to know why it's more important to build the proposed center than it is to save the lives of many students, faculty, and staff while at the same time save millions of dollars on research equipment and space.</p>

<p>It is a widely held belief among geologist that the Bay Area is long overdue for a major major earthquake. And it's no secret that in such an event many big and important buildings on campus are likely to suffer heavy damage. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/news/extras/1997/SAFER/Pages/findings.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.berkeley.edu/news/extras/1997/SAFER/Pages/findings.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Of course, Berkeley has nowhere near enough money to fix them all at once. So why not go for the really crappy important buildings? That means Latimer, Lewis, Tolman, Wurster, McLaughlin, etc. Fixing up most of the "very poor" or "poor" buildings would cost less than the new facility. Aren't research and lives more important than...getting more trophies?</p>

20

<p>dobby,</p>

<p>Many donors are going to have funds earmarked for sports anyway, so the money either goes to sports...or nothing.</p>

<p>You may see it as just trophies, but for a university it's prestige and added value.</p>

<p>In any case, you're all over the map with your arguments. First it was saving some trees. Now it's "saving lives." Why are you so against developing sports programs?</p>