Nailed it. I've coached in another sport for way too long along with a little football and the guy Desean reminds me of is Jimmy Rollins. Jimmy was undersized but was incredibly skilled and the smartest guy I ever coached (including about a dozen Stanford guys). I always said that Jimmy would be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company if he didn't play baseball.

The things he shares with Desean is an innate feel for timing and the heart and desire he displayed with his confidence and swag. The best have that!

okaydo;842427442 said:

---

DeSean gets no credit for his intelligence.

But....before DeSean, Andy Reid was hesitant to let rookie receivers get a lot of playing time because it took 3 seasons to master his complex playbook.

DeSean was different, though. His very first game, vs. the Rams in Philly, was an utterly dominant performance. And he helped get the Eagles to the NFC Championship game.

DeSean is now 28, in his 7th season, and he's still kicking butt. Yes, talent and speed are part of the equation. But playing the position smartly is also a big factor.

---

gobears20;842427357 said:

---

I always use Cal when referencing where I went, and I have yet to come across somebody who didn't know it was Berkeley. Yes, I have lived in the Bay Area my entire 40 years, and I live down in Stanford territory. Take it for what that is worth.

---

I didn't know what cal was before getting here.

No bias at all. Look at the grad rates. That tells the entire story....

berk18;842427358 said:

---

As everyone's saying, at the academic level it's always Berkeley. None of the fantastic prospective graduate students or professors that want to work at our alma mater would ever say that they're applying to "Cal." Growing up in Fresno I had a number of friends who were Israeli, and when I told their parents that I was going to Berkeley they said "That's where all of the textbooks in Israel came from!" I worked at a summer camp for smart kids for several years, and as an experiment I told a few people (who all had, at a minimum, M.A.'s) that I went to Cal, and they didn't know what to do with that, some even asking "Cal State?"

What amazes me is that the Cal/Berkeley distinction is largely held up even in popular culture. There was an episode of Weeds where one of the kids did something stupid, and an adult character says something like "You'll never get into Berkeley if you do stuff like that." But my personal favorite comes in Frank Ocean's Novacane (not that I'd recommend the song, but it's fun when Cal shows up in unexpected ways):

I blame it on the model broad with the Hollywood smile,
aww stripper booty and a rack like wow, brain like Berkeley.

When the Berkeley/Cal distinction is used in a pun about fellatio (cf. Urban Dictionary: Brain), you know it's deeply engrained in the American consciousness.

---

Don't apologize for "Novocane" which is an awesome song. :p

When I applied to Cal in high school in SoCal, we all called it "Berkeley." or UC Berkeley. 'nuff said. It's not "Cal" until you're there and into frustrating or embarrassing sports teams.

The Stanford/Cal double standard is an interesting one. I can see why nobody would emphasize Lynch's intelligence (I honestly have zero idea how smart he is), but the DeSean case is provocative. Academic Intelligence is not the same as game smarts, that is true.

Ncsf;842427447 said:

---

Nailed it. I've coached in another sport for way too long along with a little football and the guy Desean reminds me of is Jimmy Rollins. Jimmy was undersized but was incredibly skilled and the smartest guy I ever coached (including about a dozen Stanford guys). I always said that Jimmy would be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company if he didn't play baseball.

The things he shares with Desean is an innate feel for timing and the heart and desire he displayed with his confidence and swag. The best have that!

---

Ncsf, where did you coach? I played at Encinal and Jimmy made the game look so easy. Great guy from the beginning and never let fame change him. Antwon should have been even better from a physical standpoint. Sorry to get a little off topic.

ayetee11;842427467 said:

---

Ncsf, where did you coach? I played at Encinal and Jimmy made the game look so easy. Great guy from the beginning and never let fame change him. Antwon should have been even better from a physical standpoint. Sorry to get a little off topic.

---

He played for me for a couple summers and falls sophomore and junior years. I had Dontrelle too. Antwon was built like a Greek god, he just liked music more.

Lots of grads = better/tougher/smarter school??????
I would think that a school that is really tough has a higher percentage of people who wash out, ie. worse grad rate. Not sure what your point is.

71Bear;842427457 said:

---

No bias at all. Look at the grad rates. That tells the entire story....

---

82gradDLSdad;842427476 said:

---

Lots of grads = better/tougher/smarter school??????
I would think that a school that is really tough has a higher percentage of people who wash out, ie. worse grad rate. Not sure what your point is.

---

Not 71 fan but I think he was alluding to the fact that we were getting guys with mediocre academics but higher stars in the Tedford/Lupoi heyday.

Back to the OP - The media always uses the "smart" label when it comes to players from elite private schools such as the Ivies and Stanford (and, to a lesser extent, with the service academies). How often do we hear that label applied to athletes who played at elite public schools such as Cal, Michigan, Virginia, Southern Branch, North Carolina, etc.?

Bottom line: I think the OP's observation does not reflect anti-Cal sentiment as much as a private-public bias.

I always looked at Cal's grad rate as an indication that it was a tougher school than Stanfurd. I know when I played one year of baseball I had to drop out at the end because I was so far behind in my classes and didn't want to take the Fs. And that was baseball, much easier than football. The grad rate measurement is a hot button for me because you can make it look good in any number of nefarious ways. Didn't Andrew Luck get some sort of Architecture in the Bonneville Salt Flats degree?

Ncsf;842427480 said:

---

Not 71 fan but I think he was alluding to the fact that we were getting guys with mediocre academics but higher stars in the Tedford/Lupoi heyday.

---

southseasbear;842427555 said:

---

Back to the OP - The media always uses the "smart" label when it comes to players from elite private schools such as the Ivies and Stanford (and, to a lesser extent, with the service academies). How often do we hear that label applied to athletes who played at elite public schools such as Cal, Michigan, Virginia, Southern Branch, North Carolina, etc.?

Bottom line: I think the OP's observation does not reflect anti-Cal sentiment as much as a private-pubic bias.

---

Absolutely

The recent decision to upgrade the minimum gpa for entry gives credence to observations that we run a two tier program. I am guessing that with the new admission standards the gap between football players and the rest of the student body will tighten considerably in comparison to the Tedford years.

southseasbear;842427555 said:

---

Back to the OP - The media always uses the "smart" label when it comes to players from elite private schools such as the Ivies and Stanford (and, to a lesser extent, with the service academies). How often do we hear that label applied to athletes who played at elite public schools such as Cal, Michigan, Virginia, Southern Branch, North Carolina, etc.?

Bottom line: I think the OP's observation does not reflect anti-Cal sentiment as much as a private-pubic bias.

---

I have to agree. Thanks for the thoughtful answer but did you mean private-pubic or private-public.

Interesting. I see the crappy grad rate as a statement that Cal completely abandoned its responsibility to recruit players who belong in a competitive academic environment. I see it as a statement that Cal doesn't give a s... whether a kid graduates, they only care about on field performance. I see it as a statement that the finest public university in the country sold it soul for the sake of a few wins (emphasize few) in athletic contests.

IMO, rationalizing the worst grad rates among schools in the Power Five conferences is ridiculous. There is no excuse for terrible grad rates. This is the number one reason why I support Coach Dykes. I believe he is trying to address this shortcoming. FINALLY.

71Bear;842427651 said:

---

Interesting. I see the crappy grad rate as a statement that Cal completely abandoned its responsibility to recruit players who belong in a competitive academic environment. I see it as a statement that Cal doesn't give a s... whether a kid graduates, they only care about on field performance. I see it as a statement that the finest public university in the country sold it soul for the sake of a few wins (emphasize few) in athletic contests.

IMO, rationalizing the worst grad rates among schools in the Power Five conferences is ridiculous. There is no excuse for terrible grad rates. This is the number one reason why I support Coach Dykes. I believe he is trying to address this shortcoming. FINALLY.

---

For many years, Cal administration, faculty, and alumni took great pride in the campus' Germanic roots in not mollycoddling its students, including the lack of university housing and the low retention rate. I recall at CalSo, Professor Slotman telling us we could all be "A" students at Hayward State but that it's better to get a "C" or even flunk out at Berkeley. (Yes, he was being sarcastic, but his statements were based on real attitudes.) Cal has always had a high number of "drop outs"; indeed, that number is factored in to freshman admissions to make space for JC transfers. My point is that Cal's APR rate should not be considered in a vacuum but reviewed in connection with the overall graduation rate of non-athletes.

wifeisafurd;842427402 said:

---

Well some of the problem does deal with majors.

---

I assume you are referring to easier majors? Is there much validity to our players under Tedford being herded into the easier majors? If so it wouldn't be much of a surprise since that was happening when I was at Cal in the 70s. Does anyone have a breakdown of the majors during the Tedford era?

southseasbear;842427671 said:

---

For many years, Cal administration, faculty, and alumni took great pride in the campus' Germanic roots in not mollycoddling its students, including the lack of university housing and the low retention rate. I recall at CalSo, Professor Slotman telling us we could all be "A" students at Hayward State but that it's better to get a "C" or even flunk out at Berkeley. (Yes, he was being sarcastic, but his statements were based on real attitudes.) Cal has always had a high number of "drop outs"; indeed, that number is factored in to freshman admissions to make space for JC transfers. My point is that Cal's APR rate should not be considered in a vacuum but reviewed in connection with the overall graduation rate of non-athletes.

---

"Germanic roots"? I think that is more the school with the moto: "Die Luft der Freiheit weht."

calumnus;842427678 said:

---

"Germanic roots"? I think that is more the school with the moto: "Die Luft der Freiheit weht."

---

Yes, under President Wheeler, the University conscientiously pursued the German model of higher education. Much has been written about in it books chronicling the history of our alma mater.

Ncsf;842427272 said:

---

With all due respect, that's crap. Stop making excuses. Richard Sherman is always touted as an intelligent guy. And Kaepernick comes across as a moron because he makes horrible decisions, gives one word answers at press conferences, and acts like a punk. Baldwin is an incredibly intelligent guy and Desean always shows he's very articulate. Marshawn is Marshawn and let's face it- no way in hell he gets in to Stanford. Nobody even talks about Mebane and Conte because they aren't scoring touchdowns.

Im sick of people bringing up race when it's not the case. It cheapens it when there really is an issue.

---

This is spot on. Bringing up race is BS.

When I think of NFL guys who went to Cal - Aaron Rodgers, Marshawn Lynch, Desean Jackson, Keenan Allen - come to mind. With the exception of Rodgers, these aren't the most polished guys in interviews.

Many Cal alums who are active players in the NFL probably wouldn't have made it into Stanford (guys like Rodgers, Vereen, Schwartz, Mack, Anger being the exceptions).

I would take Cal's NFL talent over Stanford's in a heartbeat, but I can't think of a former Stanford player (currently in the NFL) that doesn't come across well in interviews.

Letsroll;842427676 said:

---

I assume you are referring to easier majors? Is there much validity to our players under Tedford being herded into the easier majors? If so it wouldn't be much of a surprise since that was happening when I was at Cal in the 70s. Does anyone have a breakdown of the majors during the Tedford era?

---

Cal athletes often choose more flexibleinterdisciplinary majors because of the difficulty of scheduling classes/tests around practice and road trips.

Stanford athletes also choose interdisciplinary majors for the same reason. Stanford does a much better job of making their majors sound "technical" and thus more impressive to football announcers.

At Cal, you see a lot of "American Studies" majors, while on Stanford's team you see a lot of "Science, Technology and Society" majors. LINK

southseasbear;842427555 said:

---

Back to the OP - The media always uses the "smart" label when it comes to players from elite private schools such as the Ivies and Stanford (and, to a lesser extent, with the service academies). How often do we hear that label applied to athletes who played at elite public schools such as Cal, Michigan, Virginia, Southern Branch, North Carolina, etc.?

Bottom line: I think the OP's observation does not reflect anti-Cal sentiment as much as a private-public bias.

---

+1 Other private schools I've heard lauded as producing "smart players" include Duke, Vandy and Northwestern.

Ncsf;842427447 said:

---

I've coached in (baseball) for way too long ... and the guy Desean reminds me of is Jimmy Rollins. Jimmy was undersized but was incredibly skilled and the smartest guy I ever coached (including about a dozen Stanford guys). I always said that Jimmy would be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company if he didn't play baseball.

The things he shares with Desean is an innate feel for timing and the heart and desire he displayed with his confidence and swag. The best have that!

---

I assume you have a strong winning record as a baseball coach since you've had so many talented players. If so, then IF you are a Cal grad you must be as sick as I am that we have effectively given a totally mediocre Baseball coach a lifetime contract, seemingly just because he went to Stanford.

After 15 years there is absolutely no evidence Dave Esquer will ever be successful at Cal. He had one good year, which was a totally lucky fluke. When will the administration ever get a clue?

We could easily have an elite program like Virginia and North Carolina and yet we suck because we continue to tolerate Esquer's incompetence. It's so sad nobody really cares about having an outstanding Baseball program at Cal. Otherwise, Esquer would have been fired long ago.

OsoDorado;842427791 said:

---

I assume you have a strong winning record as a baseball coach since you've had so many talented players. If so, then IF you are a Cal grad you must be as sick as I am that we have effectively given a totally mediocre Baseball coach a lifetime contract, seemingly just because he went to Stanford.

After 15 years there is absolutely no evidence Dave Esquer will ever be successful at Cal. He had one good year, which was a totally lucky fluke. When will the administration ever get a clue?

We could easily have an elite program like Virginia and North Carolina and yet we suck because we continue to tolerate Esquer's incompetence. It's so sad nobody really cares about having an outstanding Baseball program at Cal. Otherwise, Esquer would have been fired long ago.

---

Agree, Cal should have a top notch baseball program. There's so much talent in California and over the last 20 years, schools like Fullerton, UCLA, USC and Stanford have fielded some great teams.

ecb;842427453 said:

---

I didn't know what cal was before getting here.

---

Same here. Grew up in the bay area too. People wildly overestimate the brand's strength.

calumnus;842427685 said:

---

Cal athletes often choose more flexibleinterdisciplinary majors because of the difficulty of scheduling classes/tests around practice and road trips.

Stanford athletes also choose interdisciplinary majors for the same reason. Stanford does a much better job of making their majors sound "technical" and thus more impressive to football announcers.

At Cal, you see a lot of "American Studies" majors, while on Stanford's team you see a lot of "Science, Technology and Society" majors. LINK

---

To a certain degree this is correct about the interdisciplinary majors. But you don't see the same number of STEM and Business majors in Cal football that you do with other sports or many other schools, including Furd.

Letsroll;842427251 said:

---

I have noticed on many occasions when Stanford players in the NFL are spoken about, the words "smart" or "intelligent" are mentioned. Whether it is Luck or Ertz or Fleener or Trent Murphy or Baldwin et al first comes "out of Stanford" and then comes "a smart player". Sometimes their major in college is even mentioned. Even a couple of their offensive lineman get the smart label with a chuckle "well he should be. he is from Stanford".

OTOH, I have not heard that happen once relative to our players. Lynch, Rodgers, DeSean, Justin, Mebane, et al. Not once have I heard how smart they are or what our players majored in.

What accounts for this media bias? Is that Cal is no longer seen as an elite school academically or is it that our players don't project the image?

---

"[O]ur players don't project the image"

You are correct. The grad rate shouldn't be considered in a vacuum...

Overall grad rate at Cal - 91%
Football grad rate - 51%

The football grad rate is a disgrace.

UCBerkGrad;842427277 said:

---

Well, your co-worker is an idiot.

---

You need to experience life outside of the state..."Cal" is not known the way you think it is...

Letsroll;842427251 said:

---

I have noticed on many occasions when Stanford players in the NFL are spoken about, the words "smart" or "intelligent" are mentioned. Whether it is Luck or Ertz or Fleener or Trent Murphy or Baldwin et al first comes "out of Stanford" and then comes "a smart player". Sometimes their major in college is even mentioned. Even a couple of their offensive lineman get the smart label with a chuckle "well he should be. he is from Stanford".

OTOH, I have not heard that happen once relative to our players. Lynch, Rodgers, DeSean, Justin, Mebane, et al. Not once have I heard how smart they are or what our players majored in.

What accounts for this media bias? Is that Cal is no longer seen as an elite school academically or is it that our players don't project the image?

---

A friend thinks this is a recent phenomena. For instance, that Stanford players would be fawned over as smart just because they went to Stanford didn't seem to be true in the 60s and 70s. I don't recall any football analyst saying that about Plunkett just like they didn't say that about Ed White or Bartkowski. And even into the 80's I don't recall hearing it. No one made the "John Elway went to Stanford and, therefore, he is smart" or "James Lofton majored in _______________ while at Stanford."

I wonder what happened which has created the spin? It maybe just the simple answer that Stanford has done a good job of creating an image of smart, intelligent students and grads.

Letsroll;842427959 said:

---

No one made the "John Elway went to Stanford and, therefore, he is smart" or "James Lofton majored in _______________ while at Stanford."

I wonder what happened which has created the spin? It maybe just the simple answer that Stanford has done a good job of creating an image of smart, intelligent students and grads.

---

James Lofton received his degree in Industrial Engineering in 4 years. John Elway's degree was in Economics.

Letsroll;842427959 said:

---

A friend thinks this is a recent phenomena. For instance, that Stanford players would be fawned over as smart just because they went to Stanford didn't seem to be true in the 60s and 70s. I don't recall any football analyst saying that about Plunkett just like they didn't say that about Ed White or Bartkowski. And even into the 80's I don't recall hearing it. No one made the "John Elway went to Stanford and, therefore, he is smart" or "James Lofton majored in _______________ while at Stanford."

I wonder what happened which has created the spin? It maybe just the simple answer that Stanford has done a good job of creating an image of smart, intelligent students and grads.

---

Maybe it's more common now, but I do recall a lot of talk in the 70s that Dallas liked to draft Stanford players because of their intelligence.

UCBerkGrad;842427277 said:

---

Well, your co-worker is an idiot.

---

Is UCBerKGrad arguing on behalf of the strength of the Cal brand a good use of the word, irony?

86Oski;842428024 said:

---

Maybe it's more common now, but I do recall a lot of talk in the 70s that Dallas liked to draft Stanford players because of their intelligence.

---

Cowboys were my favorite team. Come to think of it, they had Donovan, Tony Hill, Laidlaw, Benny Barnes. Cal had Morton.

pingpong2;842427287 said:

---

We'll have to agree to disagree then. Outside of California (hell, even norcal) I haven't found a whole lot of people who connect Cal with Berkeley. Outside of the country it's even more bleak. And don't give me crap about how these people are dumb and it shouldn't matter what they think; these are students, engineers, lawyers, doctors, and other intellectuals. When a decent portion of the educated population don't know Cal = Berkeley, that's a problem.

---

The real problem is that our name is four syllables. It's been shortened to Cal. We should have and could now call ourselves California for all purposes. We need to merge the Berkeley with the Cal and people will get the message.

pingpong2;842427287 said:

---

We'll have to agree to disagree then. Outside of California (hell, even norcal) I haven't found a whole lot of people who connect Cal with Berkeley. Outside of the country it's even more bleak. And don't give me crap about how these people are dumb and it shouldn't matter what they think; these are students, engineers, lawyers, doctors, and other intellectuals. When a decent portion of the educated population don't know Cal = Berkeley, that's a problem.

---

Tell someone from Asia that you went to Cal and s/he may think you are podunk. Tell that same person you went to Berkeley, and they may bow down to you on the spot.

6bear6;842428060 said:

---

The real problem is that our name is four syllables. It's been shortened to Cal. We should have and could now call ourselves California for all purposes. We need to merge the Berkeley with the Cal and people will get the message.

---

Cal-Berkeley?

I usually just say Berkeley (2 syllables), and I've never had anyone confuse it with Berklee School of Music (yet).