Important Announcement Regarding Future of Cal Athletics

Total bummer for us baseball fans

http://pacmail.em.marketinghq.net/content/2008000078/calScript_.jpg


Dear Cal Supporters,

Of the many communications which we are sending out today regarding our plan for Cal Athletics’ future, this letter, to our loyal fans and alumni, is among the most difficult. Your passion for and belief in the Cal Athletics program are not and never will be taken for granted: we have to earn it every day.  Although we know that our decisions will be cause for concern and difficult for a number of you, we are confident that we have worked out a plan that will guarantee the preeminence of Intercollegiate Athletics at Berkeley while simultaneously helping address the serious financial challenges that our campus is facing.

We have made a set of decisions that will meet our goal to have a sustainable, financially responsible program that will remain broad based and fully capable of continuing to support our commitment to excellence in the university’s every endeavor.  We are committed to maintaining the indispensable role that Athletics plays as a vehicle for community building and an engine of philanthropy for the whole campus.

The status quo is simply unsustainable. Given the economic environment, the campus cannot continue to provide Cal Athletics with recent levels of annual financial support that exceeded $12 million during the last fiscal year. After an exhaustive consideration of every reasonable option, it became clear to us that the only credible way to balance our twin objectives of financial sustainability and continued excellence is through a reduction in the program’s scope, along with new steps to contain costs and increase revenues. At the end of this academic year, baseball, men’s and women’s gymnastics, and women’s lacrosse will no longer represent the university in varsity intercollegiate competition. In addition one team, rugby, will be transitioned to a newly created varsity club status. The team’s history indicates that this change should not affect its competitive opportunities or abilities, and the varsity club status will allow us to maintain rugby’s unsurpassed excellence with continued campus support in terms of admissions, sports medicine and access to training facilities. Rugby was a club sport  at Cal from the 1950’s to the early 1990’s, and is today the only remaining varsity team in Division 1 of the NCAA.

We will do everything in our power to help student-athletes, coaches and staff successfully manage the challenges of this transition. We will honor scholarship commitments for all student-athletes who choose to remain at Berkeley, and assist those who may wish to explore the possibility of continuing to compete at another institution.

Together, these steps will save an estimated $4 million in direct and indirect costs beginning in the next fiscal year and bring down institutional support to a level that we can sustain. Factoring in reasonable estimates of increased revenues, including funds we expect to receive from a new Pac-12 media contract, annual institutional support for Athletics will be reduced to approximately $5 million a year by FY 2014.  We anticipate that this support will represent about one-half of the cost of athletics scholarships at that time and recognizes that our intercollegiate athletes are students first and athletes second.

We will retain, at 24 teams, one of the larger programs in the country at an annual cost that is consistent with the level of support provided to athletics by our peer institutions. This country’s best universities have long understood the value of high-quality athletics programs and the extent to which they are an integral part of what defines institutional character and identity. To ensure this tradition continues at Cal, we will protect and preserve the essential attributes that distinguish our program: a rare combination of competitive excellence, academic achievement and broad-based engagement with the campus and neighboring communities.

We examined three possible options for Cal Athletics’ future that would allow us to maintain the campus support to Intercollegiate Athletics at approximately $5 million annually, after taking into account our obligations to gender equity, plans to increase revenue and aggressive steps that we will take to contain costs.

The first option entailed extensive cuts across the board that would have damaged the competitive abilities of every single team and provided sub-standard support for our student-athletes. The second option would have called for a larger reduction in the number of teams – a completely unsatisfactory alternative given our conviction that the campus greatly benefits from a broad based program. The third and best option, the middle ground, is the one that we selected: a hybrid strategy that combines a moderate reduction in scope; limiting operational costs; and targeted investment and operational changes that will enhance philanthropy and other new and existing sources of revenue.

We came to these conclusions very reluctantly, and the decisions were as painful as they were unavoidable. We realize that this plan will not please everyone; some will say that we have gone too far, other will insist that it is not far enough. Many on the Chancellor’s Advisory Council were opposed to any reduction in teams, and some on the Academic Senate Task Force advocated for even lower or non-existent institutional support, in contrast to the situation at virtually all of our peer institutions.

Decisions of this nature are complex, multifaceted and always difficult.  As an institution we looked at a myriad of criteria once it became clear that we could no longer support 29 teams.  Factors such as net cost, donor impact, maximizing student opportunity, existence of national/regional varsity competition, contribution to diversity, impact on our ability to comply with Title IX, opportunity for NCAA and Pac 10 success, utilization of support services and history of competitive excellence were among the factors considered. The broad excellence of our program made the decisions all the more difficult. Virtually every intercollegiate program at Cal has a rich tradition of competitive success and a community of fervent backers who surround and support the team.  Our decisions mark the end of this process and, hopefully, will reduce the uncertainty and anxiety in our community.

We hope that you will take the time to read through the details of the plan in the online FAQ. You will find that while financial issues were at the heart of our analysis, they could not be addressed in isolation or solely on a team-by-team basis. Addressing the funding needs of any particular team through additional philanthropy would have only pushed the problem onto another squad due to our obligation to comply with Title IX and to ensure that, going forward, Athletics has the capacity to support and service excellence among our student athletes.
 
We hope that this outcome will have your broad support.  With a new, strong financial foundation, the Athletics program will be better positioned to provide support for the members of its community. In some key areas, Athletics has been stretched thin in terms of human resources and services that exist to support our student-athletes.  For example, on a per student-athlete basis, we are currently at or near the bottom of the Pac-10 in terms of sports medicine and strength training resources. Once this plan is implemented, we will be in the upper half of the conference in terms of our ability to provide all that our student athletes need to succeed and excel on and off the field.

We deeply regret the human toll that these decisions will take and the impact that they will have on valued members of our community who were in no way responsible for the challenges that we face. We also hope and believe that the entire Cal Athletics family will pull together in support of our student-athletes, coaches and staff. Their long-standing and well-known passion, commitment and determination to overcome adversity demand our respect and reciprocity.


Sincerely,


Robert J. Birgeneau                    Sandy Barbour
Chancellor                                 Director of Athletics


If you are interested in additional detailed information on the rationale for, and impact of these decisions please see our online FAQ at http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/goto/athletics2010

Universit of California, Berkeley | Intercollegiate Athletics | 115 Haas Pavilion #4422, Berkeley, CA 94720-4422

This email was sent to members of the Cal Family.

To unsubscribe, click here

Zombie Treatment with a dash of Oakland Flavor

Zombie Newscast:
We intro on two newscasters reporting on todays Zombie News. Men news anchors cut to downtown oakland - where our hero Boots Riley
Screen_shot_2009-10-20_at_9
 is giving an interview with one of the last Women Field Reports who has not been affected by this strange virus. 
"Well its like this - i never been one to take shit - hold up" 
He turns and connects his bat with the head of a storming, bloodied athletic zombie woman. We freeze frame the footage as he connects. One of the anchors does a John Madden impression, circling the zombie head, drawing arrows on which direction its going to head… Maybe even instant replay in slow mo...commenting on Boots stance as he connects. Then the action resumes and BOOM!
"Dang, and two weeks ago i would have spit some game to that thang" 
Cut To: 
"In other news…. Our cameras got directly into harms way"
Cut to an empty industrial street. A young skinny man with a torn shirt comes running down the street into frame as fast as he can towards the camera. The anchors are giving play by play as if it were Monday Night football. Including a telecaster that stops the motion to comment on his stride and MPH. 
The Zombies trail after him - and overwhelm the camera crew - toppling them over. The Zombies then grab the camera and start running after the kid. We get their POV
Cut To:
Breaking news…Boots has just taken out the last female reporter as she began to turn. He gives his own report from the field before being over run. 
The City has fallen.
END

WSJ.com - Oakland's Temescal Goes From Rundown to Reborn

http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;213301172;34793650;w?http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?utm_id=WSJ&cc=CLK_DCLKAWRWSJEMTLOGO" target="_blank">  * Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified.      
If "Arty / Edgy" neighborhood includes 2 men shot in the stomach during a drug deal at 4 in the afternoon on 59th and Shattuck.

 
          Click the following to access the sent link:      
WSJ.com - Oakland's Temescal Goes From Rundown to Reborn*
This article will be available to non-subscribers of the Online Journal for up to seven days after it is e-mailed.         SAVE THIS link FORWARD THIS link -->    
  SAVE THIS link FORWARD THIS link
 
 
   
Get your EMAIL THIS Browser Button and use it to email content from any Web site. Click here for more information.
   
   
  *This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste the entire address below into your web browser.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB125856546008953817-lMyQjAxMDI5NTA4MzUwN...

FD8 Reviewed + my own thoughts on Screenwriting apps

I have been thinking about this upgrade since the announcement of FInal Draft 8. As much as I think it's a sham to pay $99 for a text editor with über macros - FD and I have had an ongoing relationship now - going on 13 years.  Boiling it down to its essence, FD's ability to help me spend more time writing and thinking about story, rather than format sold me on day one. Since then it has all been fluff IMHO. VO, story cards have just sucked - lets just say it now. They have been done so much better in apps like Scrivener, but those apps don't have the industry adoption that FD has (Ugh). Basically the Tab key, and auto complete make FD worth the $300 initial investment. Anything on top of that is well ... gravy? Im not sure. I've been waiting for a while foe a company to come along and clean up in this space. But it hasn't happened yet. 

Collaboration is a huge hole, as it is in most of the production world - just look at the post world if you want to see a train wreck. Apps like CeltX rock with server side integration, story board and budget information, as well as bleeding into production. CeltX allows you to save a document and pull it down from any machine, anywhere - it also shows you when the last time the document was modified and the changes made - It's like SVN meets screenwriting. Most writers are like WTF is version control? But those of you who understand versioning and its importance will get it, and fall in love with that openness. However, CeltX has put the cart before the horse - its scripting tool isn't 100% - in fact its more like 75% in its feature set - no ability to create shooting scripts for one, a serious deal breaker with most authors - so again we are back to working with FD.

Our current workflow involves parking versions on our public Mobile Me™ accounts, pulling versions down and manually updating version numbers after we've made comments. Then of course there is the system of printing out the entire script, making notes with a Sharpie and then returning it. We do that about once every couple of months - there is something very important and organic about marking up a script with a pen, rather than on the computer. I know there is a developer out there who is listening  and taking notes :) 

For the first time in quite a while I can appreciate the new features that have gone into version 8. I think it will make collaboration with my writing partner that much easier (at least I hope..pray). Most interesting to me are the floating palettes, new layouts, index cards (although i think scrivener is still better visually), and the new .fdx format. This last little bit could be a real game changer in incorporating Final Draft in with third party applications for Production, Post, and on the iPhone; that is so long as there is a strong enough developer support and proper SDK provided by the small and often ill-equiped FD staff. 

Going to upgrade now - I'll write an addendum after my initial first impressions - and after FD gets another $99.00 out of me. 

J

Here's the review:
  • Final Draft 8

Screenwriting software gets a refresh, adopts new file format

As a 15-year user of Final Draft, I’m fairly accustomed to the program’s quirks and subtleties. I wasn’t really looking for an upgrade. But even I appreciated some of version 8’s feature refurbs and flourishes. For example, users who take advantage of Final Draft’s ScriptNote feature to give and get feedback from other writers will appreciate the readily accessible ScriptNote navigation controls, transplanted to the toolbar at the top of the main screen.

Similarly, newbies no longer have to search the drop-down menus to update their title pages; a button on the toolbar makes it quick and easy. Likewise, the Split Panels controls, which make it easier to view your Index Card outline and actual script pages simultaneously in parallel panels, have been relocated to this same prime real estate.

Final Draft 8 is also a lot easier on the eyes—literally. The once frail and marginally legible onscreen Courier font has gotten a collagen injection, making it plumper and easier to read. And the Zoom feature now boasts twice the range (75 percent to 300 percent) of its predecessor, facilitating a better user experience with today's large widescreen monitors.

Final Draft’s Index Card feature also gets a usability boost in version 8. The virtual index cards that are used for outlining and notes are now double-sided—one side displays scene notes and the other displays corresponding scene dialogue and description. Unfortunately, flipping the cards is a little clunky, as you have to select the appropriate Index Cards state in the View menu, which then flips all cards simultaneously. Though I really enjoyed the double-sided interface, I found myself wishing that I could just flip individual cards with a mouse click.

Also useful for story planning and evaluation is the newly added Scene View feature, which strips your script to its bare bones, displaying only slug lines, a little description, and page numbers. Most importantly, it lets you add a title to each scene, like “Hero Finds Amulet.” The resulting view essentially becomes a high-level skeletal outline of your story--very handy.

Final Draft 8’s Scene Navigator is a big improvement over previous versions’ Navigator function. First off, it’s now a floating palette, so you can leave it open all the time when you’re writing and use it to quickly navigate to portions of your script in progress. In addition, it now provides a variety of scene information in table format, including scene start pages, scene page count, and color coding. How is this useful? Well, one might color-code scenes according to whether they represent the adventure A-story, the romance B-story, or the humorous C-story. Thanks to color coding in the Scene Navigator, a single glance helps you identify improperly interwoven stretches of story.

Also new to Final Draft 8 is the Scene Properties Inspector floating palette. Here you can add and edit additional scene information, including notes and scene titles, as well as more color coding. Personally, I use it as a mini “grocery list” to make sure that I don’t forget any key ingredients of the scene when I’m writing.


Final Draft 8.0 moves key controls such as Split Panels to the main toolbar for easy access.

Perhaps Final Draft 8’s most substantial change is its new XML-based .fdx file format, which allows Final Draft scripts to work seamlessly with a variety of third-party story planning, budgeting, scheduling, and storyboarding applications. The bad news: Previous versions of Final Draft are unable to open this new format. This could make it a little more complicated to script-swap with others who have not yet made the upgrade—which might irritate some users whose main reason for purchasing Final Draft was its universal, cross-platform compatibility.

The good news: Saving a script in the legacy .fdr format couldn’t be easier. But be forewarned that page count and pagination can vary when bouncing between Final Draft 7 and Final Draft 8 formats, and that can be irksome when your lean 110-page comedy puts on a few pages.

Overall, I was very impressed by the stability and formatting consistency of Final Draft 8. It does what it’s supposed to do, and it does it well. Veteran Final Draft users contemplating an upgrade can rest assured that all the bugs that plagued the release of version 7 didn’t show up for the picnic this time around. During 10 days of testing, I experienced nary a crash or freeze.

Also welcome was Final Draft’s continued commitment to multi-tiered customer support. In addition to e-mail support and live chat, Final Draft still provides 24/7 phone support, the first 20 minutes of which are free. Subsequent minutes will set you back a hefty $2.50 apiece, but when it’s 3 a.m. and your deadline is first thing in the morning, it seems like a bargain.

Macworld’s buying advice

Final Draft 8 is simpler than ever for beginning users; subtle feature fixes, bountiful script templates, and top-notch support for the production rewrite process ensure that an aspiring A-list writer won’t quickly outgrow the software. But for existing users, the decision to upgrade may have less to do with new features than an increasing pressure to switch to the .fdx file format, which may follow in the footsteps of the .fdr format to become a new de facto industry standard.