Jim Michalczik promoted
Cal has announced that the offensive line coach Jim Michalczik will be the new offensive coordinator. Instead of hiring an outside guy, Tedford decided to promote from within.
From my perspective, this was a wise choice. Tedford’s staff had stayed intact for his first 4 years and was a significant part of the program’s success. Unfortunately for Cal, success brings the headhunters. A number of assistant coaches have left over the last couple years. By promoting internal candidates not only do you help prevent that particular coach from bolting but you create an environment where others might stay when headhunters come their way in the hope that they too might get a promotion some day.
Additionally, by promoting from within Tedford ensures that the new OC has “bought into” the offensive scheme that is used at Cal. There was always an uneasy feeling about the Tedford-Dunbar experiment because no one was quite sure what the experiment would yield.  In retrospect, it turns out that some of the haphazard play calling we saw in 2006 was a result of the collision between the two offensive systems.
Considering how strong our offensive line has been the last few years, it is clear that coach Michalczik is a good coach and I’m hopeful that the step up to OC and do a great job.
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:01 pm
You football fans are not that bright. Please listen to someone with some sense!
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Yeah, we’re the one’s who aren’t so bright. We’re the ones who in our ‘name’ field for the comment put “I AM THE LEADER BERKELEY!”. We’re the ones who don’t put our comments in the appropriate thread. (This one is about the offensive coordinator. The one about the preliminary injunction is below.) We’re the ones who call 75 year old Oak trees that were planted when the first stadium was built, “old growth”. We’re the ones who say this is one of a few remaining coastal oak groves when any idoit with some binoculars can see the various groves dotting the east bay hills. We’re the ones who call the Regents “corporate interests” when they in fact represent the democratically elected government. We’re the ones who are too stupid to see that new construction results in more trees, not less and that there are literally hundreds of thousands more trees in California now than there were before it was settled. We’re the ones who are too shorted sighted to see that the if the same philosophy that is fighting the performance center were in place in the 20’s that this grove of trees would never have existed. We’re the ones who think that the injunction was issued to stop the cutting down of the trees when in reality it had nothing to do with it.
Yeah, that’s us, not so bright.
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:08 am
Well said, Ken.
February 3rd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
So who is going to win the big one Ken? No, not the stadium battle, the Super Bowl! I take Indy, you?
February 3rd, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Seth, Seth, Seth. Always pick the Bears. Berkeley or otherwise.
February 3rd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
An apology to whoever wrote that awesome comment about the definition of old growth trees: Sorry, I accidently marked it as spam (what I do is mark all comments spam and then selectively approve comments that aren’t spam (I get about 50 a day) and apparently when I clicked the approve radio box for your post it somehow didn’t switch from spam to approved so when I hit the moderate button only Seth’s was approved and your was sent into the spam netherworld) and don’t know how to get it back. Hopefully it is saved in some spam queue that I can’t find right now and will check for this evening.
If for some reason you saved off the text, please re-post and I won’t mess it up twice. Sorry about that.
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
You have a good point Ken, I guess I should support the Bears regardless. Still, poor Peyton needs to win this one. On a side note, it’s nice to know my message wasn’t sent to the spam netherworld too! The post about old growth sounds interesting, I hope you can find it!
February 4th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Hey Ken here is that post again,
Here is a list of defintitions for old growth…as you will see the oak trees do not come close to matching any of these.
1. Old-growth forest – “An ecosystem distinguished by old trees and related structural attributes. Old growth encompasses the later stages of stand development that typically differ from earlier stages in a variety of characteristics which may include tree size, accumulations of large dead woody material, number of canopy layers, species, composition, and ecosystem function. More specific parameters applicable to various species are available in the USFS, Region 6, 1993 Interim Old Growth Definitions (USDA Forest Service Region 6, 1993). The Northwest Forest Plan SEIS and FEMAT describe old-growth forest as a forest stand usually at least 180 to 220 years old with moderate-to-high canopy closure; a multi-layered, multi-species canopy dominated by large overstory trees; high incidence of large trees, some with broken tops and other indications of old and decaying wood (decadence); numerous large snags; and heavy accumulations of wood, including large logs on the ground (USDA, USDI 1994a).” Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines [2001] Pg. 79 [2001 S&M ROD/S&Gs]
2. Old-growth forest – “Old-growth forests are forests that have accumulated specific characteristics related to tree size, canopy structure, snags and woody debris and plant associations. Ecological characteristics of old-growth forests emerge through the processes of succession. Certain features – presence of large, old trees, multilayered canopies, forest gaps, snags, woody debris, and a particular set of species that occur primarily in old-growth forests – do not appear simultaneously, nor at a fixed time in stand development. Old-growth forests support assemblages of plants and animals, environmental conditions, and ecological processes that are not found in younger forests (younger than 150-250 years) or in small partches of large, old trees. Specific attributes of old-growth forests develop through forest succession until the collective properties of an older forest are evident.” [pg. 45] Committee on Environmental Issues in Pacific Northwest Forest Management, Board on Biology, National Research Council. 2000. Environmental Issues in Pacific Northwest Forest Management, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 280 pp. [2000 National Research Council] Read online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/4983.html
3. Old-growth forest – A forest stand usually at least 180-220 years old with moderate to high canopy closure; a multilayered, multispecies canopy dominated by large overstory trees; high incidence of large trees, some with broken tops and other indications of old and decaying wood (decadence); numerous large snags; and heavy accumulations of wood, including large logs on the ground. Record of Decision [1994] for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. F-4 [1994 NFP ROD/S&Gs]
4. Old-Growth Forest – A forest stand usually at least 180-220 years old with moderate to high canopy closure; a multilayered, multispecies canopy dominated by large overstory trees; high incidence of large trees, some with broken tops and other indications of old and decaying wood (decadence); numerous large snags; and heavy accumulations of wood, including large logs on the ground. FEMAT Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Managment of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Vol. 1, Glossary 11 [1994 FSEIS NFP]
5. Old-Growth Forest – A forest stand usually at least 180-220 years old with moderate to high canopy closure; a multilayered, multispecies canopy dominated by large overstory trees; high incidence of large trees, some with broken tops and other indications of old and decaying wood (decadence); numerous large snags; and heavy accumulations of wood, including large logs on the ground. FEMAT Thomas, T.W., et al. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. US Government Printing Office 793-071. IX-24 [1993 FEMAT]
6. Old-growth conifer stand – Older forests occurring on western hemlock, mixed conifer, or mixed evergreen sites that differ significantly from younger forests in structure, ecological function, and species composition. Old growth characteristics begin to appear in unmanaged forests at 175-250 years of age. These characteristics include (1) a patchy multilayered canopy with trees of several age classes, (2) the presence of large living trees, (3) the presence of larger standing dead trees (snags) and down woody debris, and (4) the presence of species and functional processes that are representative of the potential natural community. Definitions are from the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Experiment Station Research Note 447 and General Technical Report 285, and the 1986 interim definitions of the Old-Growth Definitions Task Group. Thomas, T.W., et al. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. US Government Printing Office 793-071. IX-24 [1993 FEMAT]
7. Old-growth Forest – “Old-growth forests in our study area vary widely in their age and ecological state (for example, in composition and structure) which reflects a similar wide variability in their history and physical environments. Old-growth Douglas-fir forest are from about 200 to over 1000 years old; they undergo gradual but significant autogenic change during those centauries of existence and may also be subjected to varying number and intensities of disturbance events, such as windstorms. As a consequence, old-growth Douglas – fir forest can differ substantially in their degree of “old-growthness” –that is, in the degree to which they express the various structural and functional features associated with these forests; this variability must be considered in efforts to define and manage old growth.” Franklin, J.F. and T.A. Spies. 1991. Ecological Definitions of Old-Growth Douglas Fir Forests. Pp, 61-69 in: Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas -Fir Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-285. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. [1991 PNW-GTR-285]