OT: Cal's Stadium Woes Continue
The subject of Cal's stadium renovations has been discussed here before, but there's a new article in today's Wall Street Journal.
Cal is taking on over 3 times the amount of debt that Michigan did, has achieved less than 10% of its fundraising goal, and is still operating an athletic department running in the red. There were changes necessary due to fault line/earthquake concerns, but Cal has turned this into an EXTREMELY unpopular project. What a mess.
Be thankful for what we have at Michigan!
April 18th, 2012 at 10:15 AM ^
April 18th, 2012 at 10:17 AM ^
Can someone 'Bail' them out? They are such a good school its tough to see their athletics crap out.
April 18th, 2012 at 10:27 AM ^
I'm thankful for no hurricanes, volcanos, earthquakes, and limited tornados. Screw natural disasters. I don't have time for them.
Well I hope you are careful in wintertime, more people die from snow/ice related reasons than earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes and godzilla attacks combined.
But seriously, the Bay Area does not care very much about college sports. People are into the Giants, A's, Raiders, Niners, Warriors and Sharks. Cal/Stanford, nobody cares.
April 18th, 2012 at 10:30 AM ^
Glad Michigan students don't have to subsidize the athletic department like 95% of the rest of Div. 1. I don't know how I would've felt paying extra for someone to play a game while getting (potentially) a full ride to school, while I'm forced to take on the extra debt.
April 18th, 2012 at 10:52 AM ^
The irony, of course, is that if you assume that Cal students and alums care less about sports than we do overall, this is an even more bitter pill to swallow. Less concern over sports, therefore more pain to be spread around to people who aren't as attached to their team as a part of their school experience.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:38 PM ^
if you assume that Cal students and alums care less about sports than we do overall
Having spent 25 years growing up in Ann Arbor (7 of them at UMich) and now 5 years at Cal, I can tell you with great confidence: this is not so much an assumption as it is a definite fact. And as a result, people are indeed very unhappy about the stadium project as a whole. Hell, four idiots sitting in trees delayed the project a full 22 months. Granted, the student body was more amused by the protesters than specifically in support of them... but can you imagine a thing like that happening in Ann Arbor?
UM has its' fair share of overly passionate activists.
But could they have delayed improvements to the shrine at Stadium and Main for almost two years? There are more than 750,000 people that need to come pay homage, and that isn't going to stop for a couple people in trees.
DUDE. I REMEMBER DUMPSTER MUFFIN
We were honeymooning out west (Yosemite, King's Canyon, Big Sur, et al.) and on the news they were interviewing "dumpster muffin", who was one of the last ones out of the tree. It was a fantastic bit of journalism.
April 18th, 2012 at 10:34 AM ^
First the tree guy and now this? Poor saps... (see what i did there?)
April 18th, 2012 at 11:20 AM ^
The Tree Guy goes to Stanford.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:27 AM ^
I thought the tree guy was a Tide fan and didn't like Auburn?
April 18th, 2012 at 10:39 AM ^
I haven't read the other threads on the topic, so I'll apologize in advance if these have already been shared (I know, no SIAP). There are a few somewhat interesting articles from some trade magazines I've seen on the Cal Stadium project. One from POB and one from Technology & More. I'm not surprised the project cost has ballooned with all the on-site obstacles they are attacking.
April 18th, 2012 at 10:40 AM ^
There must be something I'm missing here. Maybe there's no land away from the fault to be had? Seems like a smaller, more intimiate stadium is just what Cal needs . . .
April 18th, 2012 at 10:44 AM ^
It's on the National Register of Historic places. I'm sure that opens all kinds of cans of worms.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:11 AM ^
I did not know that. Thanks for the insight. Showing my ignorance further: How does Cal's stadium make it on that register?
April 18th, 2012 at 11:22 AM ^
This is another of your enigmatic "not sure if sarcastic" comments you mentioned in another thread. Brilliant. There should be a new term for this innate ability you possess.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:24 PM ^
I seriously don't know the background of that stadium being on the national registry. The new term for this ability is probably ignorance. Or maybe stupidity.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:49 PM ^
I can't really find anything specific about what qualifies the stadium for the list. I did come across an interesting stadium timeline.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:50 PM ^
If the stadium is on the historic register, it just can't be destroyed, right? You don't have to actually occupy it, do you? Couldn't they just abandon it and built a stadium elsewhere?
April 18th, 2012 at 10:53 AM ^
Why can't they just build a smaller stadium elsewhere? Regarding the National Register of Historic Places - was Tiger Stadium on the list or no? Although I realize it took years to finally get it torn down.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:23 AM ^
It's not like land is easy to come by in the bay area unless you go way off campus.
North of campus is hilly and residential. East of campus is all hills and that's where the current stadium is. West of campus is Berkeley and wouldn't have land. South of campus is mostly a mess, so there could be something there. It's mostly cheap residential/commercial, but it's still fully occupied (even if it's by thugs and hippies), and it would take some time and money to buy up enough land/parking and figure out the roads.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:30 AM ^
Land in Berkeley for a stadium could be pretty tough to acquire. It's a very crowded area. A new stadium would probably have to be a ways off campus.
EDIT - Beaten to the punch by a better answer.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:04 AM ^
A University in California spending money they don't have on projects most don't care about? Isn't this normal operating procedure in that state?
April 18th, 2012 at 11:06 AM ^
unfortunately, this is not a problem specific to California.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:43 AM ^
The problem isn't specific to California, but it's bigger in CA than anywhere else. The UC system budget is horrible.
The reality is that people just don't care that much about college sports in CA as they do elsewhere. People were raving on the radio about how great the attendence was at USC's spring game. 15,000 people showed up, on a day that was about 75 and sunny, to see a team that will certainly contend for a national title this fall.
People just aren't into their college sports out here as in other parts of the country. So I'm not surprised that they're difficult to fund.
EDIT: I looked up our attendance, and found 25,000 in a couple different places. Admittedly, this isn't a ton better, but I think this was greatly affected by the weather. The day before, we didn't know if it was even going to happen, and most felt that even if it did, it was going to be wet. I know that my brother and his buddies decided not to make the drive for this reason, and I imagine many others did the same.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:44 AM ^
Lived in CA for four years. Interesting place.
In 2005 (you remember, the year that there is no Heisman trophy for) it was a big deal in local media that every USC home game sold out. Mind you, these were the defending champions with their entire electric offense back. And it was notable that they sold so well.
It's not that people in California don't care about sports... they just don't care quite as much. And there is some truth to the idea that this is partly because there is so much to do in the state.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:03 PM ^
I didn't mean to imply that they don't care at all. Just that they care much less.
I've been do 6 or 7 USC games since I've lived out here. First of all, that more than most of my USC alumni friends. Also, all of them were Pac-10 games, and the only one that was a sell-out was UCLA. For most of them, the stadium was 70% full or so. UCLA games are far worse.
I don't buy the "there's so much more to do" argument. If you're a big sports fan, and your team only plays a handful of times a year, you go to the games, and worry about all that other stuff for all the other weekend of the year.
California, especially Northern California, is near to or actually a majority of transplants from other states. This is why it has an incredibly vibrant sports bar culture -- it's the only way to watch your favorite teams' games. As a Michigan fan, that's why I rarely go to Cal games (there's also the issue that they perpetually underachive).
See those big red blocks surrounded by white on the right? Those are "jerseys" or (really) tarped off seats that they don't even try to sell.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:45 AM ^
would you drive in LA traffic to a terrible neighborhood to see a spring game.?
April 18th, 2012 at 11:50 AM ^
But every day is 75 and sunny out there, so it's no big sacrifice.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:59 AM ^
If it were 75 and sunny in Michigan, would you drive in terrible traffic to see our Spring Game?
Let me also refute your post. It's always nice in LA, so it's not like you're blowing a nice day. They're all nice days. And traffic isn't that bad on Saturdays. People go to Lakers and Dodgers games during rush hour, which are in worse traffic areas. Considering there are 2 million people within biking distance, I doub't traffic is the problem.
And USC isn't that bad of an area. The surrounding area is bad, and I don't want to be walking too far off campus at night time, but when the game is in the middle of the afternoon and it's on campus, that's not an issue.
The whole point of "there's so much else to do" proves my point. How many of you would rather go surfing than watch the Michigan spring game, if that was an option for you? Keep in mind, you can go surfing any other Saturday of the year. If you pick "other outdoor activity" over your team's spring game, it means you aren't as big of a fan.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:07 AM ^
This sounds like the state of California in general: swimming in debt, unable to get anything meaningful accomplished.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:48 AM ^
That's amazing that the stadium is right on the fault line. Has it ever been damaged by an earthquake?
April 18th, 2012 at 12:49 PM ^
There is movement and cracks (see pics) but the Heward fault hasn't had a major quake. Unfortunately, that means it's the fault most likley due..
.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:57 AM ^
This doesn't surprise me at all. Berkeley's a great school of course, but it's very poorly managed...so much so that the Haas business school essentially needs to become private to insulate itself from the rest of the school's budget issues.
Michigan students complain about a lot of various things, but the difference in how the two schools are managed and run is night and day. Everyone at Berkeley considers it the best public school in the country, but there's no doubt in my mind that Michigan is the better all-around school.
I think there are sound reasons why Berkeley was (and is) considered the best public school in the country (with UM not far behind), but the last few years of budget cuts represent a huge opportunity for U-M to leapfrog them IMO. We are also in tight state budgetary situation, but that's been going on a long time. We have other revenue streams that we've spent a long time developing.
I have colleagues in the UC system and their experiences over the past few years have presented me with many opportunities to be newly grateful I am affiliated with U-M. Of course U-M students will always gripe (it is their right as college students!) but there is a lot they should be happy about considering what's happening at some other places.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:02 PM ^
that might do it.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:38 PM ^
For anybody that doesn't click to the WSJ article, Cal and Michigan stadiums are completely different problems.
Michigan was about building executive suites to increase revenue.
I live less than 5 miles from Cal's stadium. It's an historic building that sit's right on top of the Heyward fault. Here is a couple of pictures:
Photo of top edge of stadium at one end. Do you think that will hold in a 8.0 quake?
Drawing of Heyward fault going "goal post to goal post" (a nicer one is in the WSJ article)
For those of you old enough to remember the '89 world series, that stadium was miles from any fault.
Maybe Michigan can play Cal in the B10 Pac12 series. You're all invited out to enjoy the game.
Since, the Cal earth quake renovation and overuns cannot be compared to Michigan's renovation, we should compare it to the overruns of another major Bay Area earth quake renovation:
LSU fans like to talk about how Tiger Staduim once showed up on the Richter scale.
One day, Cal fans are really going to have something to talk about.
I think building a new stadium would be more expensive then renovating.
I don't understand how a school with as many problems as Cal manages to retain its elite academic ranking. They're so strapped for money that they've had to scale back basic services like cleaning and trash removal. Michigan was very wise to have reduced its dependence on state funding to the point that some schools within the University are quasi-private. Cal would have been even wiser to do so, since California's state legislature is among the most chronically dysfunctional in the country.
As for their football program, I don't see them being able to remain competitive in the Pac-12 if they can't pay their coaches market salaries. The reason Tosh Lupoi bolted is because Washington more than tripled his salary (from $164,000 to $500,000). Cal fans are calling for Tedford's head because he can't seem to get them over the hump, but if Cal caves and fires him, there's no way they'll be able to attract a decent successor given their budget constraints.
How can a stadium be a historic place? Seriously? There are only how many other stadiums in Cali/USA/World so your not unique by any means. Didnt the Silverdome host mass or some BS like that with the Pope, is that dump a historic place? Its purpose by nature is to hold events, just because you've held alot of them doesnt make the place any more special.
I'm assuming it has to do with the architectural style more than any events that have been held there. There are many factors that could earn the listing.
seriously? in a society where sports are as insanely over valued as ours, how can anything other than a stadium be considered historic? tell people in boston that fenway doesn't matter. and while the silverdome is not something we look upon fondly now, neither were the grand old stadiums of the 1920s when cities were tearing them down and plopping ramped donuts around belt ways all over the country, but now we rue those days. until 30 years from now we will regret tearing down the donuts.
how many civil war battlefields do we really need?
how many statues of abe lincoln do we really need?
how many WWII memorials do we really need?