this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

College Football

6 readers
1 users here now

A community to discuss college football.

Find your team's community

Join the Fanaticus Discord

Vote in the community poll

/c/CFB Poll Top 25 Fanaticus
1. Oregon Oregon
2. Indiana Indiana
3. Ohio State Ohio State
4. Miami Miami
5. Georgia Georgia
6. Texas Texas
7. Notre Dame Notre Dame
8. BYU BYU
9. Tennessee Tennessee
10. Penn State Penn State
11. Alabama Alabama
12. SMU SMU
13. Boise State Boise State
14. Ole Miss Mississippi
15. Army Army
16. LSU Louisiana State
17. Texas A&M Texas A&M
18. Iowa State Iowa State
19. Pitt Pitt
20. Washington State Washington State
21. Clemson Clemson
T-22. Louisville Louisville
T-22. South Carolina South Carolina
24. Kansas State Kansas State
25. Colorado Colorado

Check out our other sports communities!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Manibusan@fanaticus.social
orangeNgreen@fanaticus.social
ToasterOverlord@fanaticus.social
game_bot@fanaticus.social
1
Task Force Recommends Name Change From ‘Cal’ to ‘Cal Berkeley’ (www.si.com)
submitted 1 year ago by ToasterOverlord@fanaticus.social to c/cfb@fanaticus.social
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

From the article:

The 18-person task force formed to come up with a solution to combine the school’s academic name (UC Berkeley) with its athletics name (Cal) produced an 18-page report that concludes this:

Recommendation #3

Shift the athletics identity to Cal Berkeley in both name and logo. Develop a visual identity that clearly communicates this shift.

In essence, the “Cal” and “UC Berkeley” names were merged for sports in this recommendation.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WingedThing@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago

This is a good idea for obvious reasons. Cal students and alumni will hate it for obvious reasons.

[–] ToasterOverlord@fanaticus.social 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

On one hand, I didn't realize Cal was the same school as UC Berkeley until Texas played them in 2015 (before I became a total cfb nerd), so I understand the desire to alleviate confusion.

On the other, they botched a rebranding effort not that long ago and I totally foresee the students rebelling against this, too.

Also, while I've always referred to the school as "Cal Berkeley" anyway, I was under the impression that was frowned upon -- that it's either "Cal" or "UC Berkeley" but not the two smashed together.

[–] wjrii@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Between all the clueless snobbery and the overly rigid “master plan” law that legally precludes CSU campuses from offering useful doctoral programs, I get a real cringe vibe from the UC system as a whole and Berkeley in particular.

The competing Texas systems have subtler differences in mission and THECB is often dumb but has a lot more flexibility to do right by the communities that the universities serve. Our most serious issues seem to flow from culture-war assholes in state government.

[–] ToasterOverlord@fanaticus.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Outsiders looking in find it crazy that Texas has 6 different university systems, but as you point out it works pretty well now.

But it didn't always. For example, from UT Arlington's Wikipedia article:

Efforts began to turn ASC into a four-year institution, but the Texas A&M system board refused to consider the idea since it was possible that ASC could grow to be larger than College Station.

...

Enrollment reached 9,116 students in the fall of 1963, a larger total than the Texas A&M College Station campus. Although Texas A&M proposed a reorganization for the system to recognize ASC's growth, A&M System President James Earl Rudder resisted developing ASC into a university with graduate programs. Rudder and the Texas A&M board of directors, viewing ASC as a threat to the College Station campus, withheld construction funding and blocked degree development

...

Joining the UT System was of immediate consequence. In 1966 the Graduate School was established with an initial slate of six master's degrees and new construction projects started.

[–] wjrii@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, there are stupid, inefficient turf battles like A&M holding down UTA, or A&M acting like Tech shouldn’t have a vet school(!!!!), or UH and UT fighting over that property in Houston, but it also means that the systems can grow. UTD and UTA mean there’s nobody thinking about a university in south Dallas? UNT can help with that. Tarleton State doesn’t need a ton of PhD programs, but they seem to have demand and expertise for one in criminal justice, so they have one. Same with SFA and forestry.

[–] ToasterOverlord@fanaticus.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

SFA

I heard they were flat broke and were leaning towards joining the A&M system so I just looked it up -- I totally missed the news they joined the UT system this year. Glad they got to keep their name.

[–] wjrii@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I think there was a law passed that you can't change the name of universities named after "Texas heroes." Lord knows we wouldn't want to lose such luminous legacies as Sul Ross and Mirabeau Lamar.

[–] regul@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm a Cal alum. This will undoubtedly be just as successful as the last attempt, which is to say not at all.

Not like the athletics department has any money to pursue any sort of rebranding anyway.

[–] ToasterOverlord@fanaticus.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not like the athletics department has any money

Maybe they should have asked FTX to pay them the $17.5M in naming rights in cash upfront rather than in crypto (not even 2 months before FTX imploded)

[–] regul@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I'd say that stung, but as a Cal fan I no longer feel pain.