Thank you Mike! Well said!

3,659 Views | 53 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by calumnus
CNHTH
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/michaelsilver/article/cal-berkeley-rebrand-feels-silly-time-18378317.php
panoramicknob
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Was just about to post. Very well put.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nice on several fronts:

- let's put the kibosh on "Cal Berkeley" and lame task forces (really, what if a task force told you to jump of the GG bridge?)
- I'm one of those who don't mind including that we're Berkeley, but he almost talked me out of it
- nice to have a passionate Cal alum sports writer writing about Cal; glad he convinced the editors to let him do that
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?




*Hanging in my garage
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Cabin14
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal fans have been saying this for a year….glad Silver weighed in.
OsoDorado
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nice article, but still not crystal clear as to branding recommendations (other than rejecting "Cal Berkeley" and embracing "California").

All good as far as it goes, but it doesn't recognize that Cal has a rather unique and prestigious academic identity that is not necessarily associated with its athletic identity.

To recognize the difference yet embrace both identities, not much has to change, except emphasis.

How about:

1) "The University of California," "The University of California, Berkeley," or as a shorthand, simply "Berkeley" when referencing academics; and

2) "The University of California," "California," or simply "Cal" -- note no allusion at all to "Berkeley" -- when referencing our athletics programs ? As Mike Silver pointed out, "Michigan" didn't need to be tied to Ann Arbor and "Alabama" didn't need to be related to Tuscaloosa for "branding" purposes in athletics.

Simple!
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OsoDorado said:

Nice article, but still not crystal clear as to branding recommendations (other than rejecting "Cal Berkeley" and embracing "California").

All good as far as it goes, but it doesn't recognize that Cal has a rather unique and prestigious academic identity that is not necessarily associated with its athletic identity.

To recognize the difference yet embrace both identities, not much has to change, except emphasis.

How about:

1) "The University of California," "The University of California, Berkeley," or as a shorthand, simply "Berkeley" when referencing academics; and

2) "The University of California," "California," or simply "Cal" -- note no allusion at all to "Berkeley" -- when referencing our athletics programs ? As Mike Silver pointed out, "Michigan" didn't need to be tied to Ann Arbor and "Alabama" didn't need to be related to Tuscaloosa for "branding" purposes in athletics.

Simple!


There are several things that our administration and the task force are missing:

1. The football team of a flagship public university represents more than the school, it represents the state.

2. The above is our tradition, even if it has been chipped away at. Tradition is what makes college football distinct, it's advantage over the NFL.

3. Heading to the ACC, apart from USC and UCLA is the perfect time to reassert our flagship status and compete as "California."

4. College football is big business and to generate money to close the budget gap and pay for the other sports we need to market to a broader audience than just alums and students. Thus we need a brand with broader appeal. "California" is just a fantastic sports brand and we own it. Why wouldn't we use it?
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

OsoDorado said:

Nice article, but still not crystal clear as to branding recommendations (other than rejecting "Cal Berkeley" and embracing "California").

All good as far as it goes, but it doesn't recognize that Cal has a rather unique and prestigious academic identity that is not necessarily associated with its athletic identity.

To recognize the difference yet embrace both identities, not much has to change, except emphasis.

How about:

1) "The University of California," "The University of California, Berkeley," or as a shorthand, simply "Berkeley" when referencing academics; and

2) "The University of California," "California," or simply "Cal" -- note no allusion at all to "Berkeley" -- when referencing our athletics programs ? As Mike Silver pointed out, "Michigan" didn't need to be tied to Ann Arbor and "Alabama" didn't need to be related to Tuscaloosa for "branding" purposes in athletics.

Simple!


There are several things that our administration and the task force is missing:
1. The football team of a flagship public university represents more than the school, it represents the state.
2. The above is our tradition, even if it has been chipped away at. Tradition is what makes college football distinct, it's advantage over the NFL.
3. Heading to the ACC, apart from USC and UCLA is the perfect time to reassert our flagship status and compete as "California."
4. College football is big business and to generate money to close the budget gap and pay for the other sports we need to market to a broader audience than just alums and students. Thus we need a brand with broader appeal. "California" is a winner.


The thing is that I don't think we will ever be the university that represents the entire state in terms of fans of athletics. To be fair, that won't be UCLA, USC, or Stanford either. California is just too large and diverse.

How are you going to win over fans in Southern California that are not affiliated with Cal? It is almost an impossible task and one that just sets us up for failure.

We can call ourselves whatever we want, but dominating the attention of the northern half of the state should be the goal and it would be enough to have a successful program.


calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

calumnus said:

OsoDorado said:

Nice article, but still not crystal clear as to branding recommendations (other than rejecting "Cal Berkeley" and embracing "California").

All good as far as it goes, but it doesn't recognize that Cal has a rather unique and prestigious academic identity that is not necessarily associated with its athletic identity.

To recognize the difference yet embrace both identities, not much has to change, except emphasis.

How about:

1) "The University of California," "The University of California, Berkeley," or as a shorthand, simply "Berkeley" when referencing academics; and

2) "The University of California," "California," or simply "Cal" -- note no allusion at all to "Berkeley" -- when referencing our athletics programs ? As Mike Silver pointed out, "Michigan" didn't need to be tied to Ann Arbor and "Alabama" didn't need to be related to Tuscaloosa for "branding" purposes in athletics.

Simple!


There are several things that our administration and the task force is missing:
1. The football team of a flagship public university represents more than the school, it represents the state.
2. The above is our tradition, even if it has been chipped away at. Tradition is what makes college football distinct, it's advantage over the NFL.
3. Heading to the ACC, apart from USC and UCLA is the perfect time to reassert our flagship status and compete as "California."
4. College football is big business and to generate money to close the budget gap and pay for the other sports we need to market to a broader audience than just alums and students. Thus we need a brand with broader appeal. "California" is a winner.


The thing is that I don't think we will ever be the university that represents the entire state in terms of fans of athletics. To be fair, that won't be UCLA, USC, or Stanford either. California is just too large and diverse.

How are you going to win over fans in Southern California that are not affiliated with Cal? It is almost an impossible task and one that just sets us up for failure.

We can call ourselves whatever we want, but dominating the attention of the northern half of the state should be the goal and it would be enough to have a successful program.




There are a lot of schools in Texas, they and their fans all hate the Longhorns, but Texas represents Texas, not just the school in Austin.

It is not all or nothing. It is more fans with one versus the other. It is the better brand, the more inclusive brand.

Some percentage of people from California will be sitting at bar with the California vs Florida State game on ESPN and they are naturally going to root for "California." They will buy blue and gold sweatshirts emblazoned with "California." Kids growing up in the East Bay outside of Berkeley will more naturally latch onto "the California Golden Bears" than "Cal Berkeley."

California is just our best brand, period. This is confirmed by our outside visitors like TexasAggie and DemonDeke. You go with your best brand and you build on it and California is a great, great brand.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

dimitrig said:

calumnus said:

OsoDorado said:

Nice article, but still not crystal clear as to branding recommendations (other than rejecting "Cal Berkeley" and embracing "California").

All good as far as it goes, but it doesn't recognize that Cal has a rather unique and prestigious academic identity that is not necessarily associated with its athletic identity.

To recognize the difference yet embrace both identities, not much has to change, except emphasis.

How about:

1) "The University of California," "The University of California, Berkeley," or as a shorthand, simply "Berkeley" when referencing academics; and

2) "The University of California," "California," or simply "Cal" -- note no allusion at all to "Berkeley" -- when referencing our athletics programs ? As Mike Silver pointed out, "Michigan" didn't need to be tied to Ann Arbor and "Alabama" didn't need to be related to Tuscaloosa for "branding" purposes in athletics.

Simple!


There are several things that our administration and the task force is missing:
1. The football team of a flagship public university represents more than the school, it represents the state.
2. The above is our tradition, even if it has been chipped away at. Tradition is what makes college football distinct, it's advantage over the NFL.
3. Heading to the ACC, apart from USC and UCLA is the perfect time to reassert our flagship status and compete as "California."
4. College football is big business and to generate money to close the budget gap and pay for the other sports we need to market to a broader audience than just alums and students. Thus we need a brand with broader appeal. "California" is a winner.


The thing is that I don't think we will ever be the university that represents the entire state in terms of fans of athletics. To be fair, that won't be UCLA, USC, or Stanford either. California is just too large and diverse.

How are you going to win over fans in Southern California that are not affiliated with Cal? It is almost an impossible task and one that just sets us up for failure.

We can call ourselves whatever we want, but dominating the attention of the northern half of the state should be the goal and it would be enough to have a successful program.




There are a lot of schools in Texas, they and their fans all hate the Longhorns, but Texas represents Texas, not just the school in Austin.

It is not all or nothing. It is more fans with one versus the other. It is the better brand, the more inclusive brand.

Some percentage of people from California will be sitting at bar with the California vs Florida State game on ESPN and they are naturally going to root for "California." They will buy blue and gold sweatshirts emblazoned with "California." Kids growing up in the East Bay outside of Berkeley will more naturally latch onto "the California Golden Bears" than "Cal Berkeley."

California is just our best brand, period. This is confirmed by our outside visitors like TexasAggie and DemonDeke. You go with your best brand and you build on it and California is a great, great brand.


I can buy that argument, but any thoughts that we will somehow be the brand of the entire state in the way Texas is are wishful thinking.

More to the point, it doesn't need to matter. UCLA is doing just fine with their brand. I agree with those who say that whatever our brand is, it will be burnished by winning. We can call ourselves California or Berkeley or both (depending on the situation) but what I think we can all agree on is that we were not, are not, and should never be Cal Berkeley. It ruins both brands.





MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Idiotic to not be University of California ..why be University of Directional School.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MinotStateBeav said:

Idiotic to not be University of California ..why be University of Directional School.


Squandering money, squandering value, underachieving our potential for decades. Entering the ACC we have a chance for a reset. Let's not squander it.
Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:





*Hanging in my garage

Where can Cal Strong acquire this poster?
matteye
How long do you want to ignore this user?
1,000% bring back the California state flag. We need swagger. We need traditions, Wilcox's whatever, can't be bothered vibe is tired.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

bearister said:





*Hanging in my garage

Where can Cal Strong acquire this poster?

I would like to purchase as well.
Can someone reach out to the production company and make an inquiry?
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
CNHTH
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

calumnus said:

OsoDorado said:

Nice article, but still not crystal clear as to branding recommendations (other than rejecting "Cal Berkeley" and embracing "California").

All good as far as it goes, but it doesn't recognize that Cal has a rather unique and prestigious academic identity that is not necessarily associated with its athletic identity.

To recognize the difference yet embrace both identities, not much has to change, except emphasis.

How about:

1) "The University of California," "The University of California, Berkeley," or as a shorthand, simply "Berkeley" when referencing academics; and

2) "The University of California," "California," or simply "Cal" -- note no allusion at all to "Berkeley" -- when referencing our athletics programs ? As Mike Silver pointed out, "Michigan" didn't need to be tied to Ann Arbor and "Alabama" didn't need to be related to Tuscaloosa for "branding" purposes in athletics.

Simple!


There are several things that our administration and the task force is missing:
1. The football team of a flagship public university represents more than the school, it represents the state.
2. The above is our tradition, even if it has been chipped away at. Tradition is what makes college football distinct, it's advantage over the NFL.
3. Heading to the ACC, apart from USC and UCLA is the perfect time to reassert our flagship status and compete as "California."
4. College football is big business and to generate money to close the budget gap and pay for the other sports we need to market to a broader audience than just alums and students. Thus we need a brand with broader appeal. "California" is a winner.


The thing is that I don't think we will ever be the university that represents the entire state in terms of fans of athletics. To be fair, that won't be UCLA, USC, or Stanford either. California is just too large and diverse.

How are you going to win over fans in Southern California that are not affiliated with Cal? It is almost an impossible task and one that just sets us up for failure.

We can call ourselves whatever we want, but dominating the attention of the northern half of the state should be the goal and it would be enough to have a successful program.




Why would it matter if they accept it.
We're the original flagship university. Just like Parnassus and Davis were specializations of the flagship who are now semi autonomous; fUCLA, Irvine, etc were simply satellite campuses due to the growing population in those areas.

Take UNC for instance. They don't go by unc chapel hill because unc charlotte exists.
The city name qualifier is for non flag ship satellite schools like fUCLA.
Not the flag ship.
So cal metro townie folks can kick rocks if they don't like it. Maybe they should find their own water source while they're at it. Perhaps one of the big 10 states would like to build an aqueduct to supply them?
SpecSlayer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The delusion in these posts continues to be too high.

If "Ann Arbor" was a world famous brand like "Berkeley", Michigan wouldn't waste a second rebranding.

It's only an us thing to consistently sho to ourselves in the foot like this.

We won't represent the whole state no matter what our name is. So let's use the most valuable brand.
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

OsoDorado said:

Nice article, but still not crystal clear as to branding recommendations (other than rejecting "Cal Berkeley" and embracing "California").

All good as far as it goes, but it doesn't recognize that Cal has a rather unique and prestigious academic identity that is not necessarily associated with its athletic identity.

To recognize the difference yet embrace both identities, not much has to change, except emphasis.

How about:

1) "The University of California," "The University of California, Berkeley," or as a shorthand, simply "Berkeley" when referencing academics; and

2) "The University of California," "California," or simply "Cal" -- note no allusion at all to "Berkeley" -- when referencing our athletics programs ? As Mike Silver pointed out, "Michigan" didn't need to be tied to Ann Arbor and "Alabama" didn't need to be related to Tuscaloosa for "branding" purposes in athletics.

Simple!


There are several things that our administration and the task force are missing:

1. The football team of a flagship public university represents more than the school, it represents the state.

2. The above is our tradition, even if it has been chipped away at. Tradition is what makes college football distinct, it's advantage over the NFL.

3. Heading to the ACC, apart from USC and UCLA is the perfect time to reassert our flagship status and compete as "California."

4. College football is big business and to generate money to close the budget gap and pay for the other sports we need to market to a broader audience than just alums and students. Thus we need a brand with broader appeal. "California" is just a fantastic sports brand and we own it. Why wouldn't we use it?
Those of us who know, wholeheartedly agree, but those who don't or are casual observers don't get the distinction. I moved to the east coast some years ago. When I was asked where I went to school, I said "California", and there was a pause followed by, "And...?" Or, you mean USC? Or, UCLA? No, I would say, "Cal." It wasn't until I said, "Berkeley" that they knew (if they did at all). Thus, the issue upon joining an east coast conference. The insiders will know, but even the parents of recruits? Their eyes light up as they ask, "OOOO, UCLA?"

It'll be ever thus until we can answer, "No, the California that beat UCLA the last four years straight. The 12th ranked one."
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SpecSlayer said:

The delusion in these posts continues to be too high.

If "Ann Arbor" was a world famous brand like "Berkeley", Michigan wouldn't waste a second rebranding.

It's only an us thing to consistently sho to ourselves in the foot like this.

We won't represent the whole state no matter what our name is. So let's use the most valuable brand.


I didn't read Silver's column as I don't have a Chron subscription. But I was surprised he'd make that comparison.

"Berkeley" is not the same as "Ann Arbor" or "Chapel Hill" or "Austin."

This is Gloria Stuart. She was born in 1910 and died in 2010 at age 100. You may know her from Titanic. She graduated from UC Berkeley in 1932.

I was listening to her commentary on her first film (below) and she refers to her alma mater as "Berkeley."








BearoutEast67
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal will become more immediately and universally understood when we are played on the East Coast and in the South starting Fall 2024.


Donate to Cal's NIL at https://calegends.com/donation/
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?

okaydo, Silver didn't seem to be super anti-"Berkeley" like some folks here are, but he did mention the part about the Berkeley guy being a slave-holder and speculated that everybody may be moving away from that name, down the road.

Mainly, he was pro-"California" and even lauded the Dykes regime for running out with the state flag.

For these reasons, many of us advocate a "Berkeley" in smallish font on the unis or the field/court, but no other mention of it. Then, if "Berkeley" goes south, we can just drop it.
SpecSlayer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If there is in fact a mass Berkeley dropping, it would be known to 10x more people than currently know what Cal is.

I'm not concerned about that.

Whatever name we come up with if that time comes is going to be known throughout the world.

Still has nothing to do with the fact that people don't know what Cal is.
BearHunter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The city is crazier than the school and the council has a lot of time on their hands. If the city decides to rename itself and drop Berkeley, we might be forced to adopt the new name. They recently sent out a poll to residents to rename a street . Who knows, we might end up becoming the University of California at Kala Bagai.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:


okaydo, Silver didn't seem to be super anti-Berkeley like some folks here are, but he did mention the part about the Berkeley guy being a slave-holder and speculated that everybody may be moving away from that name, down the road.

Mainly, he was pro-California and even lauded the Dykes-regime for running out with the state flag.

For these reasons, many of us advocate a "Berkeley" in smallish font on the unis or the field/court, but no other mention of it. Then, if "Berkeley" goes south, we can just drop it.


Yeah, I would be uncomfortable totally dropping the Berkeley and going solely with "California" given the Spanish colonial oppression associated with that name.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rushinbear said:

calumnus said:

OsoDorado said:

Nice article, but still not crystal clear as to branding recommendations (other than rejecting "Cal Berkeley" and embracing "California").

All good as far as it goes, but it doesn't recognize that Cal has a rather unique and prestigious academic identity that is not necessarily associated with its athletic identity.

To recognize the difference yet embrace both identities, not much has to change, except emphasis.

How about:

1) "The University of California," "The University of California, Berkeley," or as a shorthand, simply "Berkeley" when referencing academics; and

2) "The University of California," "California," or simply "Cal" -- note no allusion at all to "Berkeley" -- when referencing our athletics programs ? As Mike Silver pointed out, "Michigan" didn't need to be tied to Ann Arbor and "Alabama" didn't need to be related to Tuscaloosa for "branding" purposes in athletics.

Simple!


There are several things that our administration and the task force are missing:

1. The football team of a flagship public university represents more than the school, it represents the state.

2. The above is our tradition, even if it has been chipped away at. Tradition is what makes college football distinct, it's advantage over the NFL.

3. Heading to the ACC, apart from USC and UCLA is the perfect time to reassert our flagship status and compete as "California."

4. College football is big business and to generate money to close the budget gap and pay for the other sports we need to market to a broader audience than just alums and students. Thus we need a brand with broader appeal. "California" is just a fantastic sports brand and we own it. Why wouldn't we use it?
Those of us who know, wholeheartedly agree, but those who don't or are casual observers don't get the distinction. I moved to the east coast some years ago. When I was asked where I went to school, I said "California", and there was a pause followed by, "And...?" Or, you mean USC? Or, UCLA? No, I would say, "Cal." It wasn't until I said, "Berkeley" that they knew (if they did at all). Thus, the issue upon joining an east coast conference. The insiders will know, but even the parents of recruits? Their eyes light up as they ask, "OOOO, UCLA?"

It'll be ever thus until we can answer, "No, the California that beat UCLA the last four years straight. The 12th ranked one."


Context is decisive.

If asking where you went to school you said "Texas" someone might think you mean the state. That is why when asked people generally say "University of Texas, Austin." However, when asked what their college football team is if they say "Texas" you know they mean the Longhorns.

I know the distinction is even more true for our school and our football team. So what? I've come to accept the dual identity.

If asked where I went to school I have no problem saying "University of California, Berkeley," "UC Berkeley," or "Berkeley."

However if asked what college football team I root for it is "the University of California Golden Bears" "California" or "Cal."

It really doesn't matter if a lot of people do not know they are the same. One is the better academic brand the other is the better (and proper) sports brand. Trying to come up with a single brand just creates a worse brand for both. Clark Kent and Superman now going exclusively as "Super Clark" both in his job at the Daily Planet and in fighting supervillains.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

bearister said:






*Hanging in my garage

Where can Cal Strong acquire this poster?


Cal Bear Kenny Yamada created that poster in 1987.

He is all over Google and on LinkedIn. He is famous now:

My Dream Job is Possible | by Kenny Yamada


https://mydreamjobispossible.com/

Kenny Yamada - IMDb


https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0945230/
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We are the Mighty Cal Berkeley Bears,
The best team in the West.
We're marching on to victory,
To conquer all the rest.
We are the Mighty Cal Berkeley Bears
Triumphant evermore.
You can hear from far and near,
The Mighty Cal Berkeley Bear roar!
C! (3 claps)
B! (3 claps)
B! (3 claps)
C-B-B! Fight! Fight! Fight!


bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:

We are the Mighty Cal Berkeley Bears,
The best team in the West.
We're marching on to victory,
To conquer all the rest.
We are the Mighty Cal Berkeley Bears
Triumphant evermore.
You can hear from far and near,
The Mighty Cal Berkeley Bear roar!
C! (3 claps)
B! (3 claps)
B! (3 claps)
C-B-B! Fight! Fight! Fight!





https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/64873
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We are Sons of California,
A loyal company,
All shout for California
While we strive for victory.
All sing the joyful chorus
As her colors we unfold
Then, Hurrah! for California,
And for the Blue and Gold.

(Yell the Chorus

Hit it!
C !
A !
L !
I !
F O R !
N I A !
California!
California!
Californnnnnia!

(Sing

We'll yell for California,
Dear Mother of us all.
We'll fight for California
Till the crimson banners fall.
And raise the joyful chorus,
As her colors we unfold.
For we'll win for California,
And for the Blue and Gold.

(Sing

We are Sons of California,
Fair mistress of the sea.
And we'll win for California,
Her glorious destiny.
Then raise the joyful chorus,
As her colors we unfold.
For we'll win for California,
And for the Blue and Gold.

(Chorus)
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hail to California,
Alma Mater dear;
Sing the joyful chorus,
Sound it far and near.
Rallying round her banner,
We will never fail;
California, Alma Mater,
Hail! Hail! Hail!

Hail to California,
Queen in whom we're blest;
Spreading light and goodness
Over all the West.
Fighting 'neath her standard,
We shall sure prevail;
California, Alma Mater,
Hail! Hail! Hail!
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Our sturdy Golden Bear,
Is watching from the skies,
Looks down upon our colors fair,
And guards us from his lair.
Our banner Gold and Blue,
The symbol on it too,
Means FIGHT! for California.
For California through and through!

Stalwarts girded for the fray,
Will strive for victory,
Their all at Mater's feet will lay,
That brain and brawn will win the day.
Our mighty sons and true
Will strive for us anew,
And FIGHT! for California,
For California through and through!
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oh, they had a little party down in Newport;
There was Harry, there was Mary, there was Grace.
Oh, they had a little party down in Newport,
And they had to carry Harry from the place.
Oh, they had to carry Harry to the ferry,
And the ferry carried Harry to the shore;
And the reason that they had to carry Harry to the ferry
Was that Harry couldn't carry any more.
For California, for California,
The hills send back the cry,
We're out to do or die,
For California, for California,
We'll win the game or know the reason why.
And when the game is over, we will buy a keg of booze,
And drink to California 'till we wobble in our shoes.
So drink, tra la la,
Drink, tra la la,
Drink, drank, drunk last night,
Drunk the night before;
Gonna get drunk tonight
Like I never got drunk before;
For when I'm drunk, I'm as happy as can be
For I am member of the Souse family.
Now the Souse family is the best family
That ever came over from old Germany.
There's the Highland Dutch, and the Lowland Dutch,
The Rotterdam Dutch, and the Irish.
Sing glorious, victorious,
One keg of beer for the four of us.
Sing glory be to God that there are no more of us,
For one of us could drink it all alone. Damn near.
Here's to the Irish, dead drunk. The lucky stiffs….
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
On our rugged Eastern foothills,
Stands our symbol clear and bold,
Big "C" means to fight and strive
And win for blue and Gold.
Golden Bear is ever watching;
Day by day he prowls,
And when he hears the tread
Of lowly Stanfurd red,
From his Lair he fiercely growls.
What's he say? He says:
Grrrrrah, Grrrrrrah!
Grrrr, Rrrr, Rrrrrah!
We are Sons of California,
Fighting for the Gold and Blue.
Palms of glory we will win
for Alma Mater true.
Stanfurd's men will soon be routed
By our dazzling "C",
And when we serpentine,
Their red will turn to green,
In our hour of victory!
What's he say? He says:
Grrrrrah, Grrrrrrah!
Grrrr, Rrrr, Rrrrrah!
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When the training days are done,
And the Big Game's just begun,
And there's music in the air;
When our team runs on the field,
Stanford knows her fate is sealed,
For the Golden Bear has left his lair.

When the yells from lusty throats,
Start to getting Stanford's goat,
And the rooting section seems a howling mob, Hey! Hey!
Then you grab your hat and shout,
You let folks know you're about,
For you know that Stanford Jonah's on the job.

So…then… it's…
Up with the Blue and Gold,
Down with the Red;
California's out for a victory.
We'll drop our battle-axe on
Stanford's head, Chop!

When we meet her, our team will surely beat her.
Down on the Stanford Farm there'll be no sound,
When our Oski rips through the air.
Like our friend Mister Jonah,
Stanford's team will be found
In the tummy of the Golden Bear!
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Boldly, Sons and Daughters,
From our hearts our song we sing.
For all the glory we shall bring her,
Alma Mater's name will ring.
Lift your voices; fly the banners;
From a distance all they shall see
Will be the symbol of California's Triumph,
Rising to Victory!

Onward, Californians,
For our spirit shall not die.
To this occasion, we shall toast her;
Lift your glasses to the sky.
Cheer your praises, strike the Band up;
May the story always be told
Of our prevailing to bring a mighty vict'ry
Home for the Blue and Gold!
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.