Wednesday, 2/26/97
Hey Berkeley: ‘California’ isn’t the only school in UC
system
Schools use names to flaunt age and intimidate rivals
I don’t know if I’m the only one who notices, but the snobby
school in Berkeley seems to suffer from schizophrenia.
In the world of athletics, it’s always called "University of
California," or simply "Cal." But when it comes to calling
themselves a "world-renowned research university," or a "place that
epitomizes freedom of speech," it’s always dubbed "UC
Berkeley."
How about some stylistic assimilation, people?
It leaves people like myself, who like things very simple,
pondering constantly the correct style for different
circumstances.
As much as it’s stylistically wrong to say "UC Berkeley
basketball players Ed Gray and Yogi Stewart…" in a television
broadcast, it’s just as wrong to call some award-winning professor
from Berkeley "a University of California professor."
It’s not exactly wrong to say that, but it’s stylistically
wrong. Working in print media, a style error is simply an
error.
This illness is not endemic to Berkeley. Look at the
universities of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Illinois at Urbana
Champaign, Texas at Austin, Nevada at Reno and on and on.
For every UNC Chapel Hill, there’s a UNC Charlotte. For every
Nevada at Reno, there’s a Nevada at Las Vegas.
Does bragging that the school was the first institution in that
state school system give it some kind of athletic preeminence? Some
type of pregame intimidation?
Are they thinking opposing teams will say, "I can’t believe
we’re playing the first-ever public university in the state of
North Carolina! How could we ever get rid of these
butterflies?"
I don’t know much about those non-UC schools, but as far as that
Berkeley school is concerned, UCLA (one of seven other UC schools,
excluding UC San Francisco) has dominated the rivalry in almost
every sport for the last 50 years.
To me, UC Berkeley is like the disgruntled older sibling who
can’t stand seeing a younger siblings prosper. So the only thing to
do is to constantly beat over the head the fact that they are the
first born.
How pathetic.
* * *
It seems that conference respect in college athletics currently
lies with the East Coast. In football, teams like Florida and
Florida State have dominated the national attention. In basketball,
the Atlantic Coast Conference is receiving all the favorable
ratings.
One way to promote the Pac-10’s national clout, in my opinion,
is to expand it to 12 teams. Two more teams would bring more
television airtime and more exposure in print media.
Two teams that come into mind are Utah and Brigham Young
University.
Adding those two teams would be perfect for three important
reasons.
First, in most major sports, the two schools are top athletic
schools year in and year out. Although BYU is currently having a
horrendous year in basketball, it’s traditionally been one of the
best programs in the West.
Utah is currently top-five in most of the polls, so no need to
make any cases for the Utes.
Second, it would not disturb the pattern of geographic rivalries
that the conference has going right now. Each school has an
in-state rival or an intracity rivalry with Cal-Stanford and
UCLA-USC, etc. This setup would not only go undisturbed, but would
be enhanced since Utah and BYU are bitter rivals.
Finally, if operation becomes too hectic with a dozen teams, it
would make dividing the conference in two a very viable option. The
Pac-10 Northern division could consist of the Utah, Washington, and
Oregon schools, while the Southern division would feature the
California and Arizona universities.
If the incorporation of the Utah schools does not happen, I also
wouldn’t mind seeing the addition of the University of Hawaii at
Manoa and the University of Hawaii at Hilo. It would give us sports
reporters legitimate reasons to file reimbursement forms for trips
to Hawaii.
That would indeed be paradise.Hye Kwon