Please Support Cal!

[dobby]

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am well aware of where the money is coming from. What I'm doing is criticizing Berkeley for fundraising for issues I regard as both unnecessary and pernicious.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So what you're implying is that peer institutions are updating their athletic facilities. Could you link to evidence and prove that they didn't have the advantage over Cal for the last couple of years? Because if they did, it's quite possible that Cal could still be athletically successful without the new facilities.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, Berkeley has had a great atheletic tradition throughout its history. Yet it doesn't really seem like that tradition has succeeded in building a substantial community. Heck, one of the strongest criticisms hurled against Berkeley in recent years is that it is impersonal and largely fails to bring "together the student and campus community" in order to build "commong grounds." Now just think about those years - Cal was doing great, especially in football, which brings together the most students. So where's the substantiation of that elusive "Cal Family" CalSO counselors are ordered to talk about? I don't see it.</p>

[CalX]

<p>Actually dobby, fundraising for athletics is separate from general fundraising for the university. The former doesn't negatively impact the latter, to the contrary. Big athletic donors like Haas are also big donors to the university general fund.</p>

<p>The fact is the univerity has a football program which is housed in a very unsafe building which will have to be overhauled. Seismic retrofit has been an ongoing effort across campus since the 1980s. The stdium will have to be done sooner or later. We are presented with an opportunity to address that issue now at no cost to the University, it is stupid to not proceed with the plans from a financial standpoint. </p>

<p>As to the connection between facilities and performance, it is well established. USC had the worst basketball arena in the conference and one of the worst programs, but they suddenly shot up and landed top national recruits after building new facilities last year. There is little doubt that we would lose Tedford to the pros or a big-time college if we don't give him to tools to compete with other leading programs. As it is, he could double his salary elsewhere, but has been loyal to Cal, provided the university is committed to give his team decent facilities. He has put up with the poor facilities with the expectation that they will be upgraded down the road. Cal is the only team in the conference whose weight room cannot accomodate the whole team at once.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Look, Berkeley has had a great atheletic tradition throughout its history.

[/quote]

Cal has been mostly mediocre in the last few decades in the "big" sports. This is lagely due to the apathy if not outright antagonism of its former leaders towards sports. between 1960 and 2000, Cal has had the second worst football record in the conference ahead of Oregon State.</p>

<p>You don't seem to like the football experience at Cal, which is fine, but it is undeniabe that it brings the campus together and helps build school spirit. Only someone who is really biased against college football would support the travesty that "Save the oaks" represents.</p>

<p>PS: What do you mean by "Save Berkeley, Fight the University!"? Do you actually hate your university?</p>

[eastcoastbound]

<p>dobby, you sound like a freshman. are you the guy that walked into cal student session with a baby blue shirt during the UCLA game and got his ass handed to him? obviously you dont belong to the cal family.</p>

<p>yeah there may be other important issues. but`the most important of them is KEEP TEDFORD AT CAL. for most of us, football is a large part of our college experience. during the glory year of 2004, everybody was talking about football, in classrooms, on student newpaper, at parties. the pride of our university showed when our football team marched onto the field, and of course when we were getting drunk afterwards singing the "cal drinking song", something you probably havent even heard of. here is how the cal family works. you know you belong here when you yell "UC" when you are singing the national anthem, and instead of "home of the braves", you say "home of the bears", and after a game you chant "you know it, you tell the story, you tell the whole damn world this is the bear territory". football is easily one of the best part of every fall semester. if we want to keep our head coach and successes in football, we need to renovate our facilities.</p>

<p>of course cal is more than just football. but football is one symbol of school pride whether you like it or not. yes, we celebrate our great tradition in academic and research, and community services. but we as a school connected every saturday after playing of "big C" and firing of the cannon. this, my friend, is the "elusive cal family". </p>

<p>ps. have u ever been in lewis and latimer, or u just happen to look these two up? i've been conducting experiments as well as attending classes/seminars in both, and i have no idea how you judge them as "very poor" or "poor" condition. and welcome to berkeley.</p>

[dobby]

<p>
[quote]
yeah there may be other important issues. but`the most important of them is KEEP TEDFORD AT CAL.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not saying football isn't important. I'm saying that in IMHO there are more important issues. The biggest one is seismic retrofitting, followed closely by a crackdown on crime on campus and the immediate surrounding area. </p>

<p>
[quote]
of course cal is more than just football. but football is one symbol of school pride whether you like it or not. yes, we celebrate our great tradition in academic and research, and community services. but we as a school connected every saturday after playing of "big C" and firing of the cannon. this, my friend, is the "elusive cal family".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am well aware of the fact that sporting events, like most social events, are incredibly effective at making people feel like they "belong" in a group. To a certain degree, that's actually a good thing. If a person doesn't have at least some sort of group identity, s/he is very likely to commit suicide.</p>

<p>But while football may be pretty good at bringing the student community together for a couple of hours each week, if Berkeley truly wants to improve the undergraduate experience across domains, it should also spend on other issues. Prominent among these are increased funding for undergraduate research, smaller class sizes, better pay for lecturers, reduction or elimination of impaction, direct pro-student negotiation with landlords, increased UCPD presence in consistently crime-ridden campus areas, etc.</p>

<p>If Berkeley were actually fundraising for those issues, I'd be pretty happy with the planned athletic facilities. But the sad reality is that the fundraising for the issues I consider most important appears to be nowhere near as important for the administration as issues like sports, diversity, and inclusion.</p>

<p>
[quote]
ps. have u ever been in lewis and latimer, or u just happen to look these two up? i've been conducting experiments as well as attending classes/seminars in both, and i have no idea how you judge them as "very poor" or "poor" condition.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See the link I provided to a university site in which those buildings, and others, are listed as being in some sort of "poor" seismic condition.</p>

[punkdudeus]

<p>i love the hippies in the olk grove....they're great...spirt of dissent in cal...man i'm durnk.....but yha, i dunno what to think of the hoak thin....tis all good thou
go bears...</p>

[eastcoastbound]

<p>k dude, if you want to organize a fundraising on these issues, go for it. nobody is stopping you. it's not athletic department's responsibility to do those things. but i fail to see how these issues stop renovation of the stadium. the thing stops us from renovate the stadium is these oaks and people who live on them. i dont see how u can be sympathetic to them with your completely separate issues. </p>

<p>as for seismic conditions, there were many projects going on a while ago. if you see that report you posted that was almost 10 years ago. im not sure if they fixed latimer and lewis yet.</p>