"And every Sunday you can look in the newspaper and see how many football teams are better than ours, and at last count it was 22."... Out of 117 plus schools I would say that is pretty darn good. I wonder what the school's "Public Policy" program is ranked nationally? JERK!!!!
Before you go off and talk about the Goldman School of Public Policy, do your research! GSPP is one of the best in the nation, and you shouldn't be insulting the school or the professor. O'hare may not have the most favorable of solutions, but at least he's working on a plan to try to solve Cal's budget problem. Also, if you've ever had the opportunity to meet him or take one of his classes, you'd know he knows what he's talking about--he's one of the best, if not THE BEST professor I've had at Cal.
Academics and athletics are both important. And we want recognition for both programs. Yes, Cal's ranked in both football and basketball, and we should all applaud and celebrate that. But we should all do our research, calculate the numbers, figure out who's benefiting and who's losing, factor what's important...then reconsider if anyone should be calling him a jerk.
Michael O'Hare is probably a PhD of something, Yet he can't figure out that the Cal football team hasn't had a huge influence on the amount of donations coming in from alumni?
Isn't alumni donations now one of the factors used to rank universities?
I'm sure that the alumni would much rather see Cal ranked #22 than again experience the embarrassment we all felt for the 30+ years after these guys "de-emphasized" major athletics the last time. Jeff Tedford, the alumni love you. Don't pay any attention to these egomaniacs.
Here is O'Hare's quote:
Michael O'Hare, professor of public policy and one of nine faculty who submitted the resolution, said during the meeting that athletics should receive no school money.
"UC Berkeley is the best university in the world and athletics plays no part in that ranking," O'Hare said. "And every Sunday you can look in the newspaper and see how many football teams are better than ours, and at last count it was 22."
Cal's vibrant intercollegiate athletics program is an important component of the campus culture and an important part of what makes Cal special. O'Hare is wrong.
Schools should be used for education, not as sports arenas. After all, they are still called places for higher learning. Our passion for sports has outgrown our powers of reasoning - look at any of the fanatics that rale against the Chancellor for his decision. Let's have our youth educated - we still suffer from a 51% functional iliteracy rate in the USA. Sports can wait, a good mind is still something that should never be wasted! Gary
How can you subsidize sports that benefit just a few when tuition is going up more than 30%? Middle class kids can't afford these costs. Why should they have to pay even more for the small percentage of students who actually play intercollegiate sports? The time has come to put college sports in perspective and stop penalizing the average student so a small minority of "athletically gifted students" can indulge their egos in public.
The blame should not be put on any programs at the U C's or State Colleges or for that matter the Junior Colleges. Take the trip to Sac. and put the blame on the government where it belongs. Funding for all colleges and schools has been cut so far back the everyone is pitted against each to find the funds. Athletics have been a sourse for funds for the colleges for years both by attendance, exposure and donations, but with the cost of schools going up EVERY 6 MONTHS now everyone is crying for funds. The students that are not involved in sports themselves, attend the games and the events before and after the games. To remove sports whould change the experance of going to college.
The state government has to restore and replace the funds they have removed from education, but, as long as they can have us, the population, pitted against each other our students and children will be the ones that suffer.
UCBerkeley has been among the best as a think tank college and in the past a powerful athletics program from which both sides have benefited. As many of the "athletically gifted students" have graduated and gone on to be very successful in all fields of business and science.
Long live the independent republic of Berkeley, as is was and should always be!
Every year the Alumni Association hits me up for money and I always send them the same letter stating that once they stop putting all the university funds into football instead of academics they will start receiving generous donations from me. Until they do I will not give them a penny. If the football fans really are the biggest donors then they can shoulder the whole thing on their own. They're the ones who benefit in any case.
As a Cal grad, it's rather embarrassing to see the ignorance displayed by my fellow alums.
Football is not the problem here - Football is a *revenue generating* sport, from TV appearances, ticket sales, bowl games/profit sharing, and alumni donations. If you cut $10M from the athletic department's budget, it's not going to come from Football and Basketball that pay for themselves, it's going to come from the myriad of men's sports that aren't self-supporting (many women's sports will need to be preserved to provide participation parity due to Title IX). The last thing the athletic department is going to do is make damaging cuts in the sports that pay for all the rest.
Just realize that when you cut athletic funds, you're not cutting into the football budget - you're disproportionately hurting small, non-revenue sports made up of true student-athletes.
Bigdruid is exactly right. Football for the most part makes it possible for the other sports to exist. Want to know why athletics are so costly? Because people thought that women should have the same opportunities as men in the athletic scheme and created Title IX. Whether this is right or wrong I don't know or care. But if you're asking atheletic to be it's own revenue generating entity, then they should be allowed to keep the programs that generate income. And I'll tell you what that will be, football and basketball. They'll keep baseball probably. Everything else will be up to the athletic director. So women's basketball, field hockey, soccer, rowing, gymnastics, along with all other non-revenue generating men & women programs will all go away (the only women revenue generating program in the country is Hawaii volleyball I believe). There's a reason why there are no sustainable women's professional athletic leagues (WNBA is subsidized by the NBA, even Mia Hamm & company couldn't make soccer profitable), which tells me nobody will pay to watch women's sports. So before you all get on the 'athletics should generated it's own money' bandwagon, you better think because then equality in athletics will cease to exist. And that is what Berkeley has fought so hard for decades. You can't have it both ways.
Cal is a great univerisity to be certain. They produce people that can and will make a difference in our lives for the good. The Cal athlete on the other hand is not important to us as a society. Priorities people. When you are having a heart attack you will not be calling for a quarterback.
You need to check your information, quote"the Cal athlete on the other had is not important to us as a society". Most of the athletes at Cal graduate and get their BA's, BS's, Masters and PHD's. There has been very many over the years that were major players in Industry, and Science. Cal graduates more athletes than most of all the other colleges. Now if you were talking about Florida, Oklahoma, Texas or any of the other sports factories, than I'd agree. But, Cal is chosen, along with Stanford, by most if not all athletes for education first. (of course that may reflect their record) And, yes, if I had a heart attack, I woukd call a quaterback that graduated from Cal as a doctor as I have gone many doctors that have grauated from Cal and played sports.
Ask Northwestern what difference it made to them after they made the Rose Bowl in 96-97? I was there for grad school, the difference was HUGE! 40% increases in applications for admission the following year and 25% increase in alumni giving across the board (not just to football). Alumni want something to rally around and students want/need balance in their lives. Having your nose in a book all day is unhealthy. Some Cal folks need to get out of their ivory tower and off their high horse. Cal is one of the few institutions in this country that offer big time academics AND big time athletics. Let's not ruin this unique situation that we have for a well-rounded and enriching college experience.
This is not your grandfathers Cal. If you would really call a quarterback for medical attention you are misguided at best perhaps delusional.
The old Cal way I agree they were VERY good student athletes but they have recently changed the games there.
Please name the Cal quarterback under the current head coach you would call for medical help.
Here is an excerpt from an article I have provided as you seem to lack in your ability to understand how things can change. Look at the GPA below and tell me again how you would call these guys for medical attention.
Mark Alesia, of the Indy Star, is one of the best college sports-oriented investigative reporters in the country, maybe the best, and he unleashed a whopper the other day:
It’s a report on the use of “special admits” — the practice of admitting athletes under different (ie: lower) admissions standards than normal students.
Based on filings to the NCAA, the report focuses on special admissions in football.
And Cal does it as much as anyone.
“California in 2004 reported that 95 percent of its freshman football players on scholarship were special admits,” Alesia writes, “compared with 2 percent of the student body.”
Of the 21 schools shown in the Star’s chart, Cal had the highest percentage of special admits. Georgia and Texas A&M were second, at 94 percent.
Alesia goes on to write that:
“California and Florida reported that special admits in sports performed as well as other special admits, but they offered no comparison to the general student body.
“California said all special admits had just below a 2.8 GPA.”
Posted on Friday, 11/06/2009 - 7:36 a.m. PST — by Caladan
Joined: Feb 2007
Current Posts: 1
"And every Sunday you can look in the newspaper and see how many football teams are better than ours, and at last count it was 22."... Out of 117 plus schools I would say that is pretty darn good. I wonder what the school's "Public Policy" program is ranked nationally? JERK!!!!
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 1
Before you go off and talk about the Goldman School of Public Policy, do your research! GSPP is one of the best in the nation, and you shouldn't be insulting the school or the professor. O'hare may not have the most favorable of solutions, but at least he's working on a plan to try to solve Cal's budget problem. Also, if you've ever had the opportunity to meet him or take one of his classes, you'd know he knows what he's talking about--he's one of the best, if not THE BEST professor I've had at Cal.
Academics and athletics are both important. And we want recognition for both programs. Yes, Cal's ranked in both football and basketball, and we should all applaud and celebrate that. But we should all do our research, calculate the numbers, figure out who's benefiting and who's losing, factor what's important...then reconsider if anyone should be calling him a jerk.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 1
Michael O'Hare is probably a PhD of something, Yet he can't figure out that the Cal football team hasn't had a huge influence on the amount of donations coming in from alumni?
Isn't alumni donations now one of the factors used to rank universities?
I'm sure that the alumni would much rather see Cal ranked #22 than again experience the embarrassment we all felt for the 30+ years after these guys "de-emphasized" major athletics the last time. Jeff Tedford, the alumni love you. Don't pay any attention to these egomaniacs.
Here is O'Hare's quote: Michael O'Hare, professor of public policy and one of nine faculty who submitted the resolution, said during the meeting that athletics should receive no school money.
"UC Berkeley is the best university in the world and athletics plays no part in that ranking," O'Hare said. "And every Sunday you can look in the newspaper and see how many football teams are better than ours, and at last count it was 22."
Joined: Apr 2008
Current Posts: 2
Cal's vibrant intercollegiate athletics program is an important component of the campus culture and an important part of what makes Cal special. O'Hare is wrong.
Joined: May 2008
Current Posts: 83
It's Revenge of the Nerds IV; Nerds in Power.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 1
Schools should be used for education, not as sports arenas. After all, they are still called places for higher learning. Our passion for sports has outgrown our powers of reasoning - look at any of the fanatics that rale against the Chancellor for his decision. Let's have our youth educated - we still suffer from a 51% functional iliteracy rate in the USA. Sports can wait, a good mind is still something that should never be wasted! Gary
Joined: Jan 2009
Current Posts: 38
How can you subsidize sports that benefit just a few when tuition is going up more than 30%? Middle class kids can't afford these costs. Why should they have to pay even more for the small percentage of students who actually play intercollegiate sports? The time has come to put college sports in perspective and stop penalizing the average student so a small minority of "athletically gifted students" can indulge their egos in public.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 225
The blame should not be put on any programs at the U C's or State Colleges or for that matter the Junior Colleges. Take the trip to Sac. and put the blame on the government where it belongs. Funding for all colleges and schools has been cut so far back the everyone is pitted against each to find the funds. Athletics have been a sourse for funds for the colleges for years both by attendance, exposure and donations, but with the cost of schools going up EVERY 6 MONTHS now everyone is crying for funds. The students that are not involved in sports themselves, attend the games and the events before and after the games. To remove sports whould change the experance of going to college.
The state government has to restore and replace the funds they have removed from education, but, as long as they can have us, the population, pitted against each other our students and children will be the ones that suffer.
UCBerkeley has been among the best as a think tank college and in the past a powerful athletics program from which both sides have benefited. As many of the "athletically gifted students" have graduated and gone on to be very successful in all fields of business and science.
Long live the independent republic of Berkeley, as is was and should always be!
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 1
Every year the Alumni Association hits me up for money and I always send them the same letter stating that once they stop putting all the university funds into football instead of academics they will start receiving generous donations from me. Until they do I will not give them a penny. If the football fans really are the biggest donors then they can shoulder the whole thing on their own. They're the ones who benefit in any case.
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 1
As a Cal grad, it's rather embarrassing to see the ignorance displayed by my fellow alums.
Football is not the problem here - Football is a *revenue generating* sport, from TV appearances, ticket sales, bowl games/profit sharing, and alumni donations. If you cut $10M from the athletic department's budget, it's not going to come from Football and Basketball that pay for themselves, it's going to come from the myriad of men's sports that aren't self-supporting (many women's sports will need to be preserved to provide participation parity due to Title IX). The last thing the athletic department is going to do is make damaging cuts in the sports that pay for all the rest.
Just realize that when you cut athletic funds, you're not cutting into the football budget - you're disproportionately hurting small, non-revenue sports made up of true student-athletes.
Joined: Dec 2006
Current Posts: 49
Bigdruid is exactly right. Football for the most part makes it possible for the other sports to exist. Want to know why athletics are so costly? Because people thought that women should have the same opportunities as men in the athletic scheme and created Title IX. Whether this is right or wrong I don't know or care. But if you're asking atheletic to be it's own revenue generating entity, then they should be allowed to keep the programs that generate income. And I'll tell you what that will be, football and basketball. They'll keep baseball probably. Everything else will be up to the athletic director. So women's basketball, field hockey, soccer, rowing, gymnastics, along with all other non-revenue generating men & women programs will all go away (the only women revenue generating program in the country is Hawaii volleyball I believe). There's a reason why there are no sustainable women's professional athletic leagues (WNBA is subsidized by the NBA, even Mia Hamm & company couldn't make soccer profitable), which tells me nobody will pay to watch women's sports. So before you all get on the 'athletics should generated it's own money' bandwagon, you better think because then equality in athletics will cease to exist. And that is what Berkeley has fought so hard for decades. You can't have it both ways.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 1191
Cal is a great univerisity to be certain. They produce people that can and will make a difference in our lives for the good. The Cal athlete on the other hand is not important to us as a society. Priorities people. When you are having a heart attack you will not be calling for a quarterback.
Joined: Dec 2008
Current Posts: 225
Tom925,
You need to check your information, quote"the Cal athlete on the other had is not important to us as a society". Most of the athletes at Cal graduate and get their BA's, BS's, Masters and PHD's. There has been very many over the years that were major players in Industry, and Science. Cal graduates more athletes than most of all the other colleges. Now if you were talking about Florida, Oklahoma, Texas or any of the other sports factories, than I'd agree. But, Cal is chosen, along with Stanford, by most if not all athletes for education first. (of course that may reflect their record) And, yes, if I had a heart attack, I woukd call a quaterback that graduated from Cal as a doctor as I have gone many doctors that have grauated from Cal and played sports.
Joined: Jan 2007
Current Posts: 1
Ask Northwestern what difference it made to them after they made the Rose Bowl in 96-97? I was there for grad school, the difference was HUGE! 40% increases in applications for admission the following year and 25% increase in alumni giving across the board (not just to football). Alumni want something to rally around and students want/need balance in their lives. Having your nose in a book all day is unhealthy. Some Cal folks need to get out of their ivory tower and off their high horse. Cal is one of the few institutions in this country that offer big time academics AND big time athletics. Let's not ruin this unique situation that we have for a well-rounded and enriching college experience.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 1191
This is not your grandfathers Cal. If you would really call a quarterback for medical attention you are misguided at best perhaps delusional.
The old Cal way I agree they were VERY good student athletes but they have recently changed the games there.
Please name the Cal quarterback under the current head coach you would call for medical help.
Here is an excerpt from an article I have provided as you seem to lack in your ability to understand how things can change. Look at the GPA below and tell me again how you would call these guys for medical attention.
Mark Alesia, of the Indy Star, is one of the best college sports-oriented investigative reporters in the country, maybe the best, and he unleashed a whopper the other day:
It’s a report on the use of “special admits” — the practice of admitting athletes under different (ie: lower) admissions standards than normal students.
Based on filings to the NCAA, the report focuses on special admissions in football.
And Cal does it as much as anyone.
“California in 2004 reported that 95 percent of its freshman football players on scholarship were special admits,” Alesia writes, “compared with 2 percent of the student body.”
Of the 21 schools shown in the Star’s chart, Cal had the highest percentage of special admits. Georgia and Texas A&M were second, at 94 percent.
Alesia goes on to write that:
“California and Florida reported that special admits in sports performed as well as other special admits, but they offered no comparison to the general student body.
“California said all special admits had just below a 2.8 GPA.”