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!
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.
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.
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.
MinotStateBeav said:
Idiotic to not be University of California ..why be University of Directional School.
bearister said:
*Hanging in my garage
Cal Strong! said:bearister said:
*Hanging in my garage
Where can Cal Strong acquire this poster?
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.
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?"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?
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.
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.
Rushinbear said: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?"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?
It'll be ever thus until we can answer, "No, the California that beat UCLA the last four years straight. The 12th ranked one."
Cal Strong! said:bearister said:
*Hanging in my garage
Where can Cal Strong acquire this poster?
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!