Chancellor Lyons to Berkeleyize the ASUC and Cal Student Store

4,385 Views | 49 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by calumnus
pingpong2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 01Bear • 1:44a, 10/31/24
01Bear said:
WhatABonanza said:
01Bear said:

There's a reason the UC system wants to claim the "University of California" title; it's because Cal built it up into one of the premier brands in the state, if not the world. That the chancellor fails to recognize this or is willing to surrender our alma mater's brand is alarming. Our school isn't one among the many schools in the multiversity system. Our alma mater is the flagship university for the state and a world-renowned leader in just about every major field of study in academia. It stands alone as the preeminent public university in the world.**
The chancellor no doubt knows that Cal helped build the UC system into an incredible institution, or set of institutions. But it's 2024. A lot has changed in the state since Cal sat nearly alone atop the list of great public universities. The chancellor also no doubt knows that there are many great schools in the UC system, as there should be, and that each of those universities (including Berkeley) have an obligation to take steps not only to support their own campus, but the other UC campuses as well. We can compete for students and funding, but we must also work together to ensure that all of the campuses thrive. We owe that to the citizens of California. UCLA is a great university. UC Santa Barbara is a great university. UC San Diego... same. There are many great campuses in the system. Berkeley is still at the top. And I have no problem sharing the term "UC" with all of those other campuses. Holding on, saying it's important that we alone be seen as the flagship university and insisting that we alone be called "University of California" just doesn't seem important. It in fact seems counterproductive.
UC Berkeley. Cal Berkeley. Both of those seem fine to me.

There can only ever be one flagship, that's the point of being the flagship. Cal is the flagship university for the state of California. Not UCLA, not UCSD, not UC Davis nor any of the other satellite schools. This is no knock against them. They're all good or great schools in their own right. But Cal is the flagship not only because of history but because it is the best public university, period. If you and Lyons don't understand that, then get out of the way and let those who understand this lead the way.


Why is it so important to be labeled a "flagship"? I'd much rather the school be known for being an elite academic juggernaut (which the name Berkeley conveys) rather than some tenuous affiliation with the state based on some esoteric rules for flagshipness. It's not like Californians take pride in our school the same way Alabamans love Bama or Ohions love tOSU. For all practical matters, with our near single-digit acceptance rate, we are an exclusive elitist institution that just happens to be public.

It's funny, I grew up in University Village and everyone I knew called the school Berkeley. Even through high school in the East Bay, it was known as Berkeley. It wasn't until undergrad that the name Cal started working its way into the vocabulary. And then when I came back for business school, it was back to Berkeley (or Haas) because that's what all my classmates called it. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if half of them didn't realize Cal = Berkeley before coming here because why would they? Berkeley is an elite school; Cal is a state school.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
01Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to pingpong2 • 2:06a, 10/31/24
pingpong2 said:
01Bear said:
WhatABonanza said:
01Bear said:

There's a reason the UC system wants to claim the "University of California" title; it's because Cal built it up into one of the premier brands in the state, if not the world. That the chancellor fails to recognize this or is willing to surrender our alma mater's brand is alarming. Our school isn't one among the many schools in the multiversity system. Our alma mater is the flagship university for the state and a world-renowned leader in just about every major field of study in academia. It stands alone as the preeminent public university in the world.**
The chancellor no doubt knows that Cal helped build the UC system into an incredible institution, or set of institutions. But it's 2024. A lot has changed in the state since Cal sat nearly alone atop the list of great public universities. The chancellor also no doubt knows that there are many great schools in the UC system, as there should be, and that each of those universities (including Berkeley) have an obligation to take steps not only to support their own campus, but the other UC campuses as well. We can compete for students and funding, but we must also work together to ensure that all of the campuses thrive. We owe that to the citizens of California. UCLA is a great university. UC Santa Barbara is a great university. UC San Diego... same. There are many great campuses in the system. Berkeley is still at the top. And I have no problem sharing the term "UC" with all of those other campuses. Holding on, saying it's important that we alone be seen as the flagship university and insisting that we alone be called "University of California" just doesn't seem important. It in fact seems counterproductive.
UC Berkeley. Cal Berkeley. Both of those seem fine to me.

There can only ever be one flagship, that's the point of being the flagship. Cal is the flagship university for the state of California. Not UCLA, not UCSD, not UC Davis nor any of the other satellite schools. This is no knock against them. They're all good or great schools in their own right. But Cal is the flagship not only because of history but because it is the best public university, period. If you and Lyons don't understand that, then get out of the way and let those who understand this lead the way.


Why is it so important to be labeled a "flagship"? I'd much rather the school be known for being an elite academic juggernaut (which the name Berkeley conveys) rather than some tenuous affiliation with the state based on some esoteric rules for flagshipness. It's not like Californians take pride in our school the same way Alabamans love Bama or Ohions love tOSU. For all practical matters, with our near single-digit acceptance rate, we are an exclusive elitist institution that just happens to be public.

It's funny, I grew up in University Village and everyone I knew called the school Berkeley. Even through high school in the East Bay, it was known as Berkeley. It wasn't until undergrad that the name Cal started working its way into the vocabulary. And then when I came back for business school, it was back to Berkeley (or Haas) because that's what all my classmates called it. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if half of them didn't realize Cal = Berkeley before coming here because why would they? Berkeley is an elite school; Cal is a state school.


You answered your own question. Twice. Why is it so important to be labeled a "flagship"? So "the school [can be] an elite academic juggernaut" and so "Californians [can] take pride in our school the same way Alabamans love Bama or Ohions [sic] love tOSU." California has a population of roughly 39 million people; that's significant. If Cal becomes their school so they all tune in to Cal games, it will survive the next round of realignment. More importantly, if Cal is the state's flagship school, it will get the funding to continue to be "an elite academic juggernaut."

Conceding flagship status to UCLA bumps Cal from the number one public school to number two. If you don't believe me, check the US News and World Report rankings for domestic colleges. Cal is no longer the highest ranked public university; it lags behind UCLA. UCLA has started to become recognized as the state's flagship university by many around the country, if not the world. In part, this is due to recognition of the UCLA brand thanks to its sports programs. UCLA's sports successes helped to increase applications there, making it a more selective school (its acceptance rate is even lower than Cal's). While you may be happy with UCLA surpassing Cal, I sure as hell am not!

One problem I've noticed with Bay Area locals is their provincialism. They only see Cal as the local school. They don't recognize Cal's place isn't just that. Cal is greater than Berkeley; it represents more than just the East Bay or the Bay Area. Cal stands for California. Cal is part of what makes the state great and vice versa.
Reply Quote
2
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 01Bear • 2:41a, 10/31/24
01Bear said:
pingpong2 said:
01Bear said:
WhatABonanza said:
01Bear said:

There's a reason the UC system wants to claim the "University of California" title; it's because Cal built it up into one of the premier brands in the state, if not the world. That the chancellor fails to recognize this or is willing to surrender our alma mater's brand is alarming. Our school isn't one among the many schools in the multiversity system. Our alma mater is the flagship university for the state and a world-renowned leader in just about every major field of study in academia. It stands alone as the preeminent public university in the world.**
The chancellor no doubt knows that Cal helped build the UC system into an incredible institution, or set of institutions. But it's 2024. A lot has changed in the state since Cal sat nearly alone atop the list of great public universities. The chancellor also no doubt knows that there are many great schools in the UC system, as there should be, and that each of those universities (including Berkeley) have an obligation to take steps not only to support their own campus, but the other UC campuses as well. We can compete for students and funding, but we must also work together to ensure that all of the campuses thrive. We owe that to the citizens of California. UCLA is a great university. UC Santa Barbara is a great university. UC San Diego... same. There are many great campuses in the system. Berkeley is still at the top. And I have no problem sharing the term "UC" with all of those other campuses. Holding on, saying it's important that we alone be seen as the flagship university and insisting that we alone be called "University of California" just doesn't seem important. It in fact seems counterproductive.
UC Berkeley. Cal Berkeley. Both of those seem fine to me.

There can only ever be one flagship, that's the point of being the flagship. Cal is the flagship university for the state of California. Not UCLA, not UCSD, not UC Davis nor any of the other satellite schools. This is no knock against them. They're all good or great schools in their own right. But Cal is the flagship not only because of history but because it is the best public university, period. If you and Lyons don't understand that, then get out of the way and let those who understand this lead the way.


Why is it so important to be labeled a "flagship"? I'd much rather the school be known for being an elite academic juggernaut (which the name Berkeley conveys) rather than some tenuous affiliation with the state based on some esoteric rules for flagshipness. It's not like Californians take pride in our school the same way Alabamans love Bama or Ohions love tOSU. For all practical matters, with our near single-digit acceptance rate, we are an exclusive elitist institution that just happens to be public.

It's funny, I grew up in University Village and everyone I knew called the school Berkeley. Even through high school in the East Bay, it was known as Berkeley. It wasn't until undergrad that the name Cal started working its way into the vocabulary. And then when I came back for business school, it was back to Berkeley (or Haas) because that's what all my classmates called it. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if half of them didn't realize Cal = Berkeley before coming here because why would they? Berkeley is an elite school; Cal is a state school.


You answered your own question. Twice. Why is it so important to be labeled a "flagship"? So "the school [can be] an elite academic juggernaut" and so "Californians [can] take pride in our school the same way Alabamans love Bama or Ohions [sic] love tOSU." California has a population of roughly 39 million people; that's significant. If Cal becomes their school so they all tune in to Cal games, it will survive the next round of realignment. More importantly, if Cal is the state's flagship school, it will get the funding to continue to be "an elite academic juggernaut."

Conceding flagship status to UCLA bumps Cal from the number one public school to number two. If you don't believe me, check the US News and World Report rankings for domestic colleges. Cal is no longer the highest ranked public university; it lags behind UCLA. UCLA has started to become recognized as the state's flagship university by many around the country, if not the world. In part, this is due to recognition of the UCLA brand thanks to its sports programs. UCLA's sports successes helped to increase applications there, making it a more selective school (its acceptance rate is even lower than Cal's). While you may be happy with UCLA surpassing Cal, I sure as hell am not!

One problem I've noticed with Bay Area locals is their provincialism. They only see Cal as the local school. They don't recognize Cal's place isn't just that. Cal is greater than Berkeley; it represents more than just the East Bay or the Bay Area. Cal stands for California. Cal is part of what makes the state great and vice versa.


It doesn't matter so much for academics but that is why we need to emphasize that our sports teams are "California" (not exclusively "Cal"). Even if we are not everyone in California's favorite team, we want to create enough affinity that people all over the state will tune on to watch us play Florida State or North Carolina.
Reply Quote
4
WhatABonanza
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 01Bear • 10:41a, 10/31/24
01Bear said:



There can only ever be one flagship, that's the point of being the flagship. Cal is the flagship university for the state of California. Not UCLA, not UCSD, not UC Davis nor any of the other satellite schools. This is no knock against them. They're all good or great schools in their own right. But Cal is the flagship not only because of history but because it is the best public university, period. If you and Lyons don't understand that, then get out of the way and let those who understand this lead the way.
Cal. The flagship. Because we say so.

I love my alma mater. I just don't think arrogance and certainty is what made us great.

And the point of being the flagship is not just that there can be only one flagship. The flagship is the vessel hosting the commanding officer who directs the activity of the entire fleet. That's not the role UC Berkeley plays in the system.
Reply Quote
3
pingpong2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 01Bear • 11:21a, 10/31/24
01Bear said:



You answered your own question. Twice. Why is it so important to be labeled a "flagship"? So "the school [can be] an elite academic juggernaut" and so "Californians [can] take pride in our school the same way Alabamans love Bama or Ohions [sic] love tOSU." California has a population of roughly 39 million people; that's significant. If Cal becomes their school so they all tune in to Cal games, it will survive the next round of realignment. More importantly, if Cal is the state's flagship school, it will get the funding to continue to be "an elite academic juggernaut."

Conceding flagship status to UCLA bumps Cal from the number one public school to number two. If you don't believe me, check the US News and World Report rankings for domestic colleges. Cal is no longer the highest ranked public university; it lags behind UCLA. UCLA has started to become recognized as the state's flagship university by many around the country, if not the world. In part, this is due to recognition of the UCLA brand thanks to its sports programs. UCLA's sports successes helped to increase applications there, making it a more selective school (its acceptance rate is even lower than Cal's). While you may be happy with UCLA surpassing Cal, I sure as hell am not!

One problem I've noticed with Bay Area locals is their provincialism. They only see Cal as the local school. They don't recognize Cal's place isn't just that. Cal is greater than Berkeley; it represents more than just the East Bay or the Bay Area. Cal stands for California. Cal is part of what makes the state great and vice versa.

First of all, it's a pipe dream that Californians at large are going to have any sort of affinity to our school, when there's virtually no chance that their kids are going to be able to get in. Why root for a school that is going to reject your kids?

Secondly, the reason UCLA ranks so highly in the USWNR is because 1) they have a medical school which increases and endowments and 2) they have a lower acceptance rate because they get more applications. If we want to game the system, we could do what USC does to in order to pump up our application count so that we can lower the acceptance rate. UCLA isn't ranked higher because it's a "flagship"; it's ranked higher because of the way the calcuations are set up. The fact that you seem to equate USWRN rankings with some notion that "oh no, UCLA is the flagship school" makes me wonder if you actaully graduated from here...
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to pingpong2 • 2:17p, 10/31/24
pingpong2 said:
01Bear said:



You answered your own question. Twice. Why is it so important to be labeled a "flagship"? So "the school [can be] an elite academic juggernaut" and so "Californians [can] take pride in our school the same way Alabamans love Bama or Ohions [sic] love tOSU." California has a population of roughly 39 million people; that's significant. If Cal becomes their school so they all tune in to Cal games, it will survive the next round of realignment. More importantly, if Cal is the state's flagship school, it will get the funding to continue to be "an elite academic juggernaut."

Conceding flagship status to UCLA bumps Cal from the number one public school to number two. If you don't believe me, check the US News and World Report rankings for domestic colleges. Cal is no longer the highest ranked public university; it lags behind UCLA. UCLA has started to become recognized as the state's flagship university by many around the country, if not the world. In part, this is due to recognition of the UCLA brand thanks to its sports programs. UCLA's sports successes helped to increase applications there, making it a more selective school (its acceptance rate is even lower than Cal's). While you may be happy with UCLA surpassing Cal, I sure as hell am not!

One problem I've noticed with Bay Area locals is their provincialism. They only see Cal as the local school. They don't recognize Cal's place isn't just that. Cal is greater than Berkeley; it represents more than just the East Bay or the Bay Area. Cal stands for California. Cal is part of what makes the state great and vice versa.

First of all, it's a pipe dream that Californians at large are going to have any sort of affinity to our school, when there's virtually no chance that their kids are going to be able to get in. Why root for a school that is going to reject your kids?

Secondly, the reason UCLA ranks so highly in the USWNR is because 1) they have a medical school which increases and endowments and 2) they have a lower acceptance rate because they get more applications. If we want to game the system, we could do what USC does to in order to pump up our application count so that we can lower the acceptance rate. UCLA isn't ranked higher because it's a "flagship"; it's ranked higher because of the way the calcuations are set up. The fact that you seem to equate USWRN rankings with some notion that "oh no, UCLA is the flagship school" makes me wonder if you actaully graduated from here...


Seriously? Few non-alum college football fans root for a college football team because of "the school." People root for Bama because they are from Alabama, or they like a particular player, like the mascot as a kid, or just root for winners…. Same with every major college football or basketball brand. Most fans are past college age anyway, they don't root for a team because they think they or their kids are going to go there.

That in fact is why feeling the need to tie "California" with the Berkeley campus is counter productive. The vast majority of people in California watching ESPN on a Saturday are not watching the team from the school they went to.

And again, I am not saying we need to be everyone's favorite team, we just need them to like (or hate) "California" enough to watch a game when we are televised even if they went to Cal State East Bay, CCSF, UC San Diego, UC Davis, Cal State Long Beach, Pomona College, attended an Ivy or NYU…. Or didn't go to college at all. Again, what we need is eyeballs and "California" is the best damn brand we could possibly have. That is what makes us the California "flagship" not some official pronouncement by the regents. That brand is our legacy, it is in all our traditions and fight songs, they cannot take it from us but we can stupidly give it up.

Reply Quote
4
pingpong2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calumnus • 3:10p, 10/31/24
calumnus said:
pingpong2 said:
01Bear said:



You answered your own question. Twice. Why is it so important to be labeled a "flagship"? So "the school [can be] an elite academic juggernaut" and so "Californians [can] take pride in our school the same way Alabamans love Bama or Ohions [sic] love tOSU." California has a population of roughly 39 million people; that's significant. If Cal becomes their school so they all tune in to Cal games, it will survive the next round of realignment. More importantly, if Cal is the state's flagship school, it will get the funding to continue to be "an elite academic juggernaut."

Conceding flagship status to UCLA bumps Cal from the number one public school to number two. If you don't believe me, check the US News and World Report rankings for domestic colleges. Cal is no longer the highest ranked public university; it lags behind UCLA. UCLA has started to become recognized as the state's flagship university by many around the country, if not the world. In part, this is due to recognition of the UCLA brand thanks to its sports programs. UCLA's sports successes helped to increase applications there, making it a more selective school (its acceptance rate is even lower than Cal's). While you may be happy with UCLA surpassing Cal, I sure as hell am not!

One problem I've noticed with Bay Area locals is their provincialism. They only see Cal as the local school. They don't recognize Cal's place isn't just that. Cal is greater than Berkeley; it represents more than just the East Bay or the Bay Area. Cal stands for California. Cal is part of what makes the state great and vice versa.

First of all, it's a pipe dream that Californians at large are going to have any sort of affinity to our school, when there's virtually no chance that their kids are going to be able to get in. Why root for a school that is going to reject your kids?

Secondly, the reason UCLA ranks so highly in the USWNR is because 1) they have a medical school which increases and endowments and 2) they have a lower acceptance rate because they get more applications. If we want to game the system, we could do what USC does to in order to pump up our application count so that we can lower the acceptance rate. UCLA isn't ranked higher because it's a "flagship"; it's ranked higher because of the way the calcuations are set up. The fact that you seem to equate USWRN rankings with some notion that "oh no, UCLA is the flagship school" makes me wonder if you actaully graduated from here...


Seriously? Few non-alum college football fans root for a college football team because of "the school." People root for Bama because they are from Alabama, or they like a particular player, like the mascot as a kid, or just root for winners…. Same with every major college football or basketball brand. Most fans are past college age anyway, they don't root for a team because they think they or their kids are going to go there.

That in fact is why feeling the need to tie "California" with the Berkeley campus is counter productive. The vast majority of people in California watching ESPN on a Saturday are not watching the team from the school they went to.

And again, I am not saying we need to be everyone's favorite team, we just need them to like (or hate) "California" enough to watch a game when we are televised even if they went to Cal State East Bay, CCSF, UC San Diego, UC Davis, Cal State Long Beach, Pomona College, attended an Ivy or NYU…. Or didn't go to college at all. Again, what we need is eyeballs and "California" is the best damn brand we could possibly have. That is what makes us the California "flagship" not some official pronouncement by the regents. That brand is our legacy, it is in all our traditions and fight songs, they cannot take it from us but we can stupidly give it up.

This a flawed expectation. For people who are living in metropolitan parts of the state (Bay Area, LA Metro, San Diego) they have their own local schools to root for, be it USC, UCLA, etc. to say nothing of their own alma mater. And for people who are living outside of those metro areas, they live in red counties. You seriously think that conservatives in Yuba County or Kern County are going to want to root for woke liberal Berkeley, even if you brand it as "California"? My point is no matter what brand you pick, you're not going to be able to attact non-alum fans in meaningful numbers like other states do. Hence the premise of choosing California because it'll appeal to Californians is a weak assertion.
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to pingpong2 • 5:12p, 10/31/24
pingpong2 said:
calumnus said:
pingpong2 said:
01Bear said:



You answered your own question. Twice. Why is it so important to be labeled a "flagship"? So "the school [can be] an elite academic juggernaut" and so "Californians [can] take pride in our school the same way Alabamans love Bama or Ohions [sic] love tOSU." California has a population of roughly 39 million people; that's significant. If Cal becomes their school so they all tune in to Cal games, it will survive the next round of realignment. More importantly, if Cal is the state's flagship school, it will get the funding to continue to be "an elite academic juggernaut."

Conceding flagship status to UCLA bumps Cal from the number one public school to number two. If you don't believe me, check the US News and World Report rankings for domestic colleges. Cal is no longer the highest ranked public university; it lags behind UCLA. UCLA has started to become recognized as the state's flagship university by many around the country, if not the world. In part, this is due to recognition of the UCLA brand thanks to its sports programs. UCLA's sports successes helped to increase applications there, making it a more selective school (its acceptance rate is even lower than Cal's). While you may be happy with UCLA surpassing Cal, I sure as hell am not!

One problem I've noticed with Bay Area locals is their provincialism. They only see Cal as the local school. They don't recognize Cal's place isn't just that. Cal is greater than Berkeley; it represents more than just the East Bay or the Bay Area. Cal stands for California. Cal is part of what makes the state great and vice versa.

First of all, it's a pipe dream that Californians at large are going to have any sort of affinity to our school, when there's virtually no chance that their kids are going to be able to get in. Why root for a school that is going to reject your kids?

Secondly, the reason UCLA ranks so highly in the USWNR is because 1) they have a medical school which increases and endowments and 2) they have a lower acceptance rate because they get more applications. If we want to game the system, we could do what USC does to in order to pump up our application count so that we can lower the acceptance rate. UCLA isn't ranked higher because it's a "flagship"; it's ranked higher because of the way the calcuations are set up. The fact that you seem to equate USWRN rankings with some notion that "oh no, UCLA is the flagship school" makes me wonder if you actaully graduated from here...


Seriously? Few non-alum college football fans root for a college football team because of "the school." People root for Bama because they are from Alabama, or they like a particular player, like the mascot as a kid, or just root for winners…. Same with every major college football or basketball brand. Most fans are past college age anyway, they don't root for a team because they think they or their kids are going to go there.

That in fact is why feeling the need to tie "California" with the Berkeley campus is counter productive. The vast majority of people in California watching ESPN on a Saturday are not watching the team from the school they went to.

And again, I am not saying we need to be everyone's favorite team, we just need them to like (or hate) "California" enough to watch a game when we are televised even if they went to Cal State East Bay, CCSF, UC San Diego, UC Davis, Cal State Long Beach, Pomona College, attended an Ivy or NYU…. Or didn't go to college at all. Again, what we need is eyeballs and "California" is the best damn brand we could possibly have. That is what makes us the California "flagship" not some official pronouncement by the regents. That brand is our legacy, it is in all our traditions and fight songs, they cannot take it from us but we can stupidly give it up.

This a flawed expectation. For people who are living in metropolitan parts of the state (Bay Area, LA Metro, San Diego) they have their own local schools to root for, be it USC, UCLA, etc. to say nothing of their own alma mater. And for people who are living outside of those metro areas, they live in red counties. You seriously think that conservatives in Yuba County or Kern County are going to want to root for woke liberal Berkeley, even if you brand it as "California"? My point is no matter what brand you pick, you're not going to be able to attact non-alum fans in meaningful numbers like other states do. Hence the premise of choosing California because it'll appeal to Californians is a weak assertion.


Many people in Houston or El Paso root for Texas or Texas A&M even though Houston and El Paso have there own teams. Many people in Charlotte root for "Carolina" in addition to, or instead of UNC-Charlotte.

Again, my point is that California doesn't have to be the favorite team of someone in San Diego who went to UC San Diego (though, why not?), or even San Diego State, or just a kid growing up in San Diego, we just want more of them to watch us play Florida State than would have if we were "Berkeley." It is viewership numbers that will determine where we end up in the next realignment.

As an example, I root for Hawaii and own Hawaii gear largely because of the brand, which claims the state, not really the school. My ball cap has a map of the state on the back. It only matters that I am a Cal fan when we play them. California is similar. Sure, probably not for for most, but try to avoid black and white thinking here. More people know our state than know our campus and we are competing for viewership in football and basketball, not academics.

California is the core of our traditions, all our fight songs and is a fantastic brand. We would be crazy to abandon it. We only did in the past because of pressure from UCLA and "Southern Cal" but we are not in the same conference with them anymore, so screw them. We need to reassert our traditions and reclaim our brand. Cal is fine as a nickname, but not exclusively, because it is not our name, and Cal-Berkeley is fine if you want to buy a sweatshirt because you are proud of our school, but it is not the name of our teams.
Reply Quote
1
DoubtfulBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calumnus • 8:04a, 11/1/24
calumnus said:
pingpong2 said:
01Bear said:



You answered your own question. Twice. Why is it so important to be labeled a "flagship"? So "the school [can be] an elite academic juggernaut" and so "Californians [can] take pride in our school the same way Alabamans love Bama or Ohions [sic] love tOSU." California has a population of roughly 39 million people; that's significant. If Cal becomes their school so they all tune in to Cal games, it will survive the next round of realignment. More importantly, if Cal is the state's flagship school, it will get the funding to continue to be "an elite academic juggernaut."

Conceding flagship status to UCLA bumps Cal from the number one public school to number two. If you don't believe me, check the US News and World Report rankings for domestic colleges. Cal is no longer the highest ranked public university; it lags behind UCLA. UCLA has started to become recognized as the state's flagship university by many around the country, if not the world. In part, this is due to recognition of the UCLA brand thanks to its sports programs. UCLA's sports successes helped to increase applications there, making it a more selective school (its acceptance rate is even lower than Cal's). While you may be happy with UCLA surpassing Cal, I sure as hell am not!

One problem I've noticed with Bay Area locals is their provincialism. They only see Cal as the local school. They don't recognize Cal's place isn't just that. Cal is greater than Berkeley; it represents more than just the East Bay or the Bay Area. Cal stands for California. Cal is part of what makes the state great and vice versa.

First of all, it's a pipe dream that Californians at large are going to have any sort of affinity to our school, when there's virtually no chance that their kids are going to be able to get in. Why root for a school that is going to reject your kids?

Secondly, the reason UCLA ranks so highly in the USWNR is because 1) they have a medical school which increases and endowments and 2) they have a lower acceptance rate because they get more applications. If we want to game the system, we could do what USC does to in order to pump up our application count so that we can lower the acceptance rate. UCLA isn't ranked higher because it's a "flagship"; it's ranked higher because of the way the calcuations are set up. The fact that you seem to equate USWRN rankings with some notion that "oh no, UCLA is the flagship school" makes me wonder if you actaully graduated from here...

Again, what we need is eyeballs and "California" is the best damn brand we could possibly have. That is what makes us the California "flagship" not some official pronouncement by the regents. That brand is our legacy, it is in all our traditions and fight songs, they cannot take it from us but we can stupidly give it up.
It's not our traditions and fight songs that make us the flagship, it's winning football games and being a ranked team every week with the occasional top 15 and CFP conversation. That's all that matters. No one cares about our fight songs or Tightwad Hill or Top Dog unless we are winners.
Reply Quote
3
concernedparent
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calumnus • 9:46a, 11/1/24
calumnus said:
pingpong2 said:
calumnus said:
pingpong2 said:
01Bear said:



You answered your own question. Twice. Why is it so important to be labeled a "flagship"? So "the school [can be] an elite academic juggernaut" and so "Californians [can] take pride in our school the same way Alabamans love Bama or Ohions [sic] love tOSU." California has a population of roughly 39 million people; that's significant. If Cal becomes their school so they all tune in to Cal games, it will survive the next round of realignment. More importantly, if Cal is the state's flagship school, it will get the funding to continue to be "an elite academic juggernaut."

Conceding flagship status to UCLA bumps Cal from the number one public school to number two. If you don't believe me, check the US News and World Report rankings for domestic colleges. Cal is no longer the highest ranked public university; it lags behind UCLA. UCLA has started to become recognized as the state's flagship university by many around the country, if not the world. In part, this is due to recognition of the UCLA brand thanks to its sports programs. UCLA's sports successes helped to increase applications there, making it a more selective school (its acceptance rate is even lower than Cal's). While you may be happy with UCLA surpassing Cal, I sure as hell am not!

One problem I've noticed with Bay Area locals is their provincialism. They only see Cal as the local school. They don't recognize Cal's place isn't just that. Cal is greater than Berkeley; it represents more than just the East Bay or the Bay Area. Cal stands for California. Cal is part of what makes the state great and vice versa.

First of all, it's a pipe dream that Californians at large are going to have any sort of affinity to our school, when there's virtually no chance that their kids are going to be able to get in. Why root for a school that is going to reject your kids?

Secondly, the reason UCLA ranks so highly in the USWNR is because 1) they have a medical school which increases and endowments and 2) they have a lower acceptance rate because they get more applications. If we want to game the system, we could do what USC does to in order to pump up our application count so that we can lower the acceptance rate. UCLA isn't ranked higher because it's a "flagship"; it's ranked higher because of the way the calcuations are set up. The fact that you seem to equate USWRN rankings with some notion that "oh no, UCLA is the flagship school" makes me wonder if you actaully graduated from here...


Seriously? Few non-alum college football fans root for a college football team because of "the school." People root for Bama because they are from Alabama, or they like a particular player, like the mascot as a kid, or just root for winners…. Same with every major college football or basketball brand. Most fans are past college age anyway, they don't root for a team because they think they or their kids are going to go there.

That in fact is why feeling the need to tie "California" with the Berkeley campus is counter productive. The vast majority of people in California watching ESPN on a Saturday are not watching the team from the school they went to.

And again, I am not saying we need to be everyone's favorite team, we just need them to like (or hate) "California" enough to watch a game when we are televised even if they went to Cal State East Bay, CCSF, UC San Diego, UC Davis, Cal State Long Beach, Pomona College, attended an Ivy or NYU…. Or didn't go to college at all. Again, what we need is eyeballs and "California" is the best damn brand we could possibly have. That is what makes us the California "flagship" not some official pronouncement by the regents. That brand is our legacy, it is in all our traditions and fight songs, they cannot take it from us but we can stupidly give it up.

This a flawed expectation. For people who are living in metropolitan parts of the state (Bay Area, LA Metro, San Diego) they have their own local schools to root for, be it USC, UCLA, etc. to say nothing of their own alma mater. And for people who are living outside of those metro areas, they live in red counties. You seriously think that conservatives in Yuba County or Kern County are going to want to root for woke liberal Berkeley, even if you brand it as "California"? My point is no matter what brand you pick, you're not going to be able to attact non-alum fans in meaningful numbers like other states do. Hence the premise of choosing California because it'll appeal to Californians is a weak assertion.


Many people in Houston or El Paso root for Texas or Texas A&M even though Houston and El Paso have there own teams. Many people in Charlotte root for "Carolina" in addition to, or instead of UNC-Charlotte.
UTEP and UNC-Charlotte are not well-known brands in power conferences. NC is split between UNC, Duke, NC State anyway. Texas as you mention is split between Texas and A&M. We also have a cultural obstacle in that we are a state of transplants that prefers pro sports generally. There doesn't exist the kind of rapid support for college athletics like in the south and the midwest. USC and UCLA are bluebloods in the two most important college sports, and even they have trouble engaging in-state non-alums.
Reply Quote
2
GoCal80
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:05a, 11/1/24
Berkeley is the brand that is recognized nationally and internationally. On campus you'll see students wearing clothing with "Berkeley" or "Cal" or "California" but the latter two are not widely connected with the academic institution. I've represented the University internationally and Berkeley is the respected and recognized brand, especially in Asia.


https://images.app.goo.gl/uLQTvR3nuDcfG99i7

https://images.app.goo.gl/EhrJtT2iECGdVFiA6

https://images.app.goo.gl/ybRasf49w9rXWaZk9

https://images.app.goo.gl/zTLRHkxKH8oganMe8
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:21p, 11/1/24

Straight up, here is the major concern about the use of "Berkeley" that many people have (speaking for others, not myself):

In greater California and nationally, if people were asked their off-the-top-of-their-head thoughts on "Berkeley", would more people's initial response be something like "world class university", or something like "Communists and smelly hippies"? Many people fear that the latter would be a more common response than the former.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
DoubtfulBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big C • 1:33p, 11/1/24
Big C said:
In greater California and nationally, if people were asked their off-the-top-of-their-head thoughts on "Berkeley", would more people's initial response be something like "world class university", or something like "Communists and smelly hippies"? Many people fear that the latter would be a more common response than the former.
In greater California and nationally, if people were asked their off-the-top-of-their-head thoughts on "California", very few would think about the University of California, Berkeley and certainly no one would think about our putrid football program
Reply Quote
1
Bowlesman80
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:24p, 11/1/24
I confess to skipping reading of all the comments.
As for brand confusion, the people who ripped off the script Cal for the "Cali" line, they should have been challenged in court.

My two cents.
"Just win, baby."
Reply Quote
1 edit
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DoubtfulBear • 2:36p, 11/1/24
DoubtfulBear said:
Big C said:
In greater California and nationally, if people were asked their off-the-top-of-their-head thoughts on "Berkeley", would more people's initial response be something like "world class university", or something like "Communists and smelly hippies"? Many people fear that the latter would be a more common response than the former.
In greater California and nationally, if people were asked their off-the-top-of-their-head thoughts on "California", very few would think about the University of California, Berkeley and certainly no one would think about our putrid football program


People are stuck in "what is" as a result of our being in a losing team in a West Coast conference competing and mostly losing to other California teams, including a satellite campus that stole our fight song. "What is" nearly got our football program relegated and nearly even cancelled last year. People have their heads in the sand.

I am harkening back to "what once was" and "what can be" if we want our football program to survive.

We were given a lifeline in the ACC with ESPN. We are no longer competing within California and the West Coast on the (local at best) PAC-12 network. We are now on a national stage, playing teams with names representing states and major cities: Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, North Carolina State, Virginia, Boston College, Pittsburgh etc on ESPN and maybe ABC with a national audience.

Moreover, we have a huge opportunity with the Raiders and soon A's in Vegas and the Warriors back in San Francisco leaving us as the only East Bay sports teams, a situation we haven't seen since the last time we were wining championships and going to Rose Bowls.

It is a huge opportunity, but we are going to squander it if we think "We are the team of the campus only, our fan base is students in the frats or sororities and alums who live in Lamorinda and it isn't much more than that, hasn't been for decades, so it can never be more than that." We are going to squander it if we play small, if we think 7-5 (3-5) with a minor bowl every year playing in front of 30,000 people against the patsies we need to schedule to make a bowl while we crow about academics is going to be enough to survive the next round of realignment.

We need to seize the opportunity. We need to emphasize, for sports, our branding that is the best vision for our new situation: sports teams that compete on a national stage against other state flagship institutions and draw in person fans from the entire East Bay and secondary fans and viewing interest from throughout California and the country. In some ways, that was our past, when we were "Sons of California" and competed for national championships but it can be our future, but not if we are small minded and continue to cling to the situation that got us into this mess in the first place.

We are not "just" the sports teams for the campus in Berkeley for the great academic school located there, we are the historical flagship team for the state of California, the largest, wealthiest and most storied state in the country (and yes, few other flagship schools are the only school in their state). Playing in the ACC on ESPN we have an opportunity to reclaim that flagship status and represent California. I understand why UCLA and USC didn't want that, but why would we limit ourselves?
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Refresh
Page 2 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.