Brought to us by the special land interests of Berkeley, California
Give Cal Plan the Ax
But where to play? How 'bout the Coliseum?
The issue isn't really the training center, which could be located in any number of different areas in or around campus. It's the California Memorial Stadium itself, which is the heart of the sports complex university officials want to reinvigorate. The stadium is an 84-year-old seismic deathtrap, built right on top of the Hayward fault, and the western half of it is slowly moving north, ripping at the foundations. Officials need to build the training center so they can move their jocks and coaches out of the stadium before a massive quake hits and buries them beneath a pile of rubble that used to be bleacher seats. Fine and good; since they work there five days a week, getting them out of the complex would surely save their lives. But then Cal administrators want to do something truly stupid: spend a fortune retrofitting the stadium itself.
Take a closer look at those odds. Seismologists claim that in any given year there's a 1 percent chance of a major quake along the Hayward fault. Cal plays between six and eight games a year at the stadium, and once the training facilities and administrative offices are relocated, these games are the only times a significant number of lives will be at risk. In other words, the university is about to spend tens of millions of dollars to prepare for a disaster that has a one-in-25,000 chance of happening.
Well, it works for UCLA, whose stadium, the Rose Bowl, is located all the way in Pasadena. And moving Cal's games to the Coliseum wouldn't jeopardize Tedford's contract, which reportedly stipulates that the training center — and only the training center — be built. Felde claims the retrofit would be financed solely by alumni contributions and ticket sales, but make no mistake: Sooner or later you'll pay for this. When the Big One does strike, public money will be used to repair the stadium, and in the meantime, the redirection of ticket revenue would only increase the athletic department's multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
Comment by Nicolas — February 20, 2007 @ 10:53PM
Comment by Andrew — February 20, 2007 @ 10:55PM
Comment by Kevin Adams — February 20, 2007 @ 11:41PM
Comment by Eddie — February 20, 2007 @ 11:43PM
Comment by Jack — February 21, 2007 @ 04:41AM
Comment by Timothy Smith — February 21, 2007 @ 07:26AM
Comment by Richard — February 21, 2007 @ 07:40AM
Comment by andy — February 21, 2007 @ 11:48AM
Comment by Jon — February 21, 2007 @ 12:32PM
Comment by Andrew Golan — February 21, 2007 @ 12:53PM
Comment by Michael Poe — February 21, 2007 @ 12:59PM
I hear there's a large stadium in Athens that's been empty since the summer of 2004 and it would probably cost less than McAfee Coliseum. Oh wait, Greece has earthquakes too. Nevermind, let's just scrap Cal football altogether.
Comment by Nate — February 21, 2007 @ 03:11PM
Comment by Wayne — February 21, 2007 @ 03:13PM
Comment by Scott — February 21, 2007 @ 03:20PM
Comment by The Spirit of Oski — February 21, 2007 @ 04:20PM
Comment by Chris L — February 21, 2007 @ 05:22PM
Comment by Janice Thomas — February 21, 2007 @ 10:01PM
Janice, the only thing "elephant"-like in this room is your head if you think your petty needs outweigh the future of the Greatest Public University in the World. I won't bother to ask where you live because you make it abundantly clear. Go find something else to complain about like your neighbor's selection of paint color or the teenage kid's loud music across the street.
Comment by Mike Lewis — February 21, 2007 @ 10:38PM
Bottomline: retrofitting the stadium is going to be less expensive then building a new one or a long term lease at the Oakland Coliseum (amortized over the expected longevity of the new renovation).
Comment by jimmy — February 21, 2007 @ 11:17PM
Comment by Wally — February 22, 2007 @ 01:41AM
Comment by Ignacio Chapela — February 22, 2007 @ 08:11AM
Comment by Bill — February 22, 2007 @ 09:31AM
Comment by Ferdinand — February 22, 2007 @ 10:08AM
Comment by Joan Barnett — February 22, 2007 @ 10:28AM
Comment by Jeff — February 22, 2007 @ 10:35AM
Comment by Jill Moore — February 22, 2007 @ 10:43AM
Comment by K Lim — February 22, 2007 @ 11:14AM
Comment by Chris L — February 22, 2007 @ 12:43PM
Comment by Christopher Adams — February 22, 2007 @ 04:09PM
Comment by Eddie — February 22, 2007 @ 04:24PM
Comment by Die Bearded Liberals — February 22, 2007 @ 10:24PM
Your idea is so stupid, I got to puke now, thank you for ruin my breakfast, and lunch today.
Comment by John Hoang — February 23, 2007 @ 10:41AM
Comment by Hamlet K. — February 23, 2007 @ 02:31PM
Comment by Jon — February 23, 2007 @ 06:03PM
Comment by Erik — February 23, 2007 @ 08:41PM
Comment by Justin Williams — February 24, 2007 @ 11:57PM
Comment by Justin Williams — February 25, 2007 @ 12:10AM
Comment by Ed Jamison — March 1, 2007 @ 12:02AM
Comment by Snoop — March 1, 2007 @ 08:30AM
Comment by John — March 10, 2007 @ 04:11AM
Comment by Lorenzo Dodaro — March 14, 2007 @ 11:54PM
Comment by Rich Sanchez — March 20, 2007 @ 01:54PM
Is anyone starting to see what an insane and self-righteous group of people we are dealing with? I sure hope so! The University of California can use all the help it can get in fending of these malicious lies and attacks perpetrated by the special land interests of the Panoramic Hill Association and the City of Berkeley. Please start today by saying enough is enough, and calling your local representatives to complain about the situation. Maybe we can get some real lawmakers on our side, instead of the tyrannical despotic city regime of Berkley.