Upon further reflection I really hate “Cal Berkeley” and I honestly think the name “Berkeley” is about to hit the chopping block. I personally hate the constant renaming of things for past sins, but given that I prefer Cal anyway, this is not a hill I will die on. Besides, “Cal Berkeley” makes us sound like a state school.
The people who originally mismanaged the University of California name and allowed this to turn into such a mess should be drawn and quartered.
Fact: the majority of Cal's players in both of its primary money-earning sports (football and men’s basketball) are black. Fact: George Berkeley (the namesake of our Berkeley), in addition to being an esteemed philosopher, was a white supremacist. He was a plantation owner. He bought and enslaved black people, whom he used to build his own wealth on his New England plantation. After much research and introspection, I believe the proposal by California Hall is both ignorant and absolutely insulting. For one, unless the committee that is recommending "Cal Berkeley" as our new athletic branding has asked every current black player and prospective black athlete that has been recruited to play for Cal the following question, this naming recommendation is not only a gross insult but also extremely poor judgment - Question for current and prospective black student-athletes who are either 1.) at this time performing for Cal or 2.) considering entering Cal as a transfer or HS recruit: "Would you like the name 'Berkeley', our city's name but also a name that originates from a famous philosopher who happened to buy and enslave black people, to be added to all things pertaining to your sport (such as in the standings on ESPN's website, on your team jersey, on the fifty yard line, included in the half-court logo, etc.)?” If California Hall (or whoever makes the final decision on this matter) has not done so, this would be a crucial prerequisite (and you would do well to publish your results) before imposing this slave owner's name on all things Cal athletics. What I or other non-black alums feel about this issue is immaterial. Ask the people that it may most profoundly affect.
Let me do something that no Blue and Gold bleeding person ever does---which is quote someone from Stanford. “The American system of government is not perfect, because the founders were imperfect men. However, it’s delivered freedom to more people than any other form of government devised in human history. It is a remarkable story.” Who said it? Dr. Condoleezza Rice.
The founders of the University of California were also imperfect. So was George Berkeley. What is interesting today is---if you polled Americans and anyone in the world and asked---what does Berkeley mean? You would get many answers---from academic excellence, smart people, contrarian thinking, free speech, DIVERSITY and even hippies/counter culture. 99.9 percent of the answers would be positive. Yes, people complain about this and that (crime, homelessness, the line at Blondies, 4 missed field goals), but in my travels around the world, you say you are from or went to Berkeley---you get a positive reaction. Slave holders and white supremacy NEVER ever has come up. The fact is Berkeley has been rebranded and that is a positive thing. If George Berkeley came back to life--do you think he would be happy or mad at what he see at his namesake school? If he were a white supremacist---he would be unhappy. It would ruin his day. And isn't that the sweetest revenge?
Martin Luther King Jr. came to campus because what Berkeley stands for today vs what happened in 1728 when a plantation was purchased in Rhode Island (who knew Rhode Island allowed Slavery??). Again, as I said in an earlier post--California Hall does know that George Berkeley is an issue AND they are concerned about it. BUT, they also told me, they don't have to do anything unless the City of Berkeley changes its name, because all UCs are named after their cities.
BTW, this is a long way of saying, I agree with you the name should be the University of California or California for short for the sports teams. But in a professional setting or travels, I always say I went to Berkeley.
It is patently false that “nobody knows Cal and UC Berkeley are the same”. Some people don’t know it. Millions do. There are some people that don’t know Ole Miss and the University of Mississippi are the same. Big f-ing deal. Just ask Kirk Herbstreit. He has championed “Cal” throughout his time at ESPN, argued against Mack Brown’s usurpation of the Rose Bowl, etc. NOBODY covering Cal in the national spotlight (basketball, football, swimming, rugby) on TV has ever thrown shade on the Cal brand, and it is freely offered that the campus is in Berkeley. Sure, some people might not be educated on what Cal is, but this is not a reason to mess with the Cal brand, which is, by the way, awesome. If you want to inform the people you meet that you went to “Cal Berkeley” or “Berkeley,” you do you.
Based on the 26 years I spent in academia, IMO it is generally a bad idea to let non-university, business-marketing people do any sort of marketing or branding for a university. They just don't understand the difference between marketing/branding in the commercial space versus universities (the latter of which rely more on reputation building around excellence than traditional media buys). Traditional marketing is OK for non-traditional student spaces (such as online degrees and certificates), but does not work as well for attracting traditional students and dollars. A bit is OK for athletics, but don't let them make the choices. They should be listening to alumni and faculty, not some overpaid consultants. Also always blew my mind how they would screw faculty on pay and then overpay some business marketing blowhards, under the excuse that it comes from different pools of money.
The ONLY people I have ever heard complain about Cal being Cal are faculty at other UCs (especially UCLA). But why should we do anything to placate UCLA? If anything, now is the time to take the University of California back. Mix in a little Berkeley association here and there (for athletics) and use UC Berkeley for academics...but NO "Cal Berkeley".
“The University of California” is the best, but I would also say it’s okay that there are different ways to refer to this dear and diverse institution. People are acting like it’s a serious problem that they have to educate others around the world on the various names. It’s a unique Cal thing. I, for one, am fine with the experience of announcing that I attended the University of California, Berkeley and that we affectionately refer to our alma mater as Cal. Sports teams should not be beholden to one or the other, IMHO. It turns out we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Multiplicity is not necessarily a bad thing. Personally, I have never used the term “Cal Berkeley.” It’s the worst of the various proposed rebranding names. It does not roll off the tongue, fist of all, as it just sounds like a nickname coupled with another word; there is a reason most of us alums have not typically used this in our conversations throughout our lives. Further, using this in all athletic circles diminishes the name of the University by making it akin to UNC Charlotte, Wisconsin Green Bay, UC Irvine (nothing against the Anteaters), etc., i.e. just a secondary campus among many.
1) They want to honor the entire UC system and not claim “The University of California” title but then recommend “Cal Berkeley” which makes us sound like a state school.
2) They make the point that other schools don’t have a different brand for athletics. Ok great point, let’s see how other flagship universities brand themselves as: Michigan, Washington, Virginia, Florida, Arizona, etc etc.
Just keep Cal and allow reference to UC Berkeley and the general public will catch on. And thanks for the shoutout.
The University of California. That is all. The original just like The Ohio State. Cal for short works fine. Cal Berkeley makes it sound too close to a Cal State campus—bad idea.
"Cal Berkeley" does not roll off the tongue well at all as a sports brand. It's actually snooty sounding. It also leaves the school open to mis-identification as a Cal State Fill-in-the-Blank school (most of which, by the way, are actually terrific schools, but for UC Berkeley's athletic branding - NO!). A rebranding of athletics using "California" seems the best approach here. The universities of Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, and North Carolina, for example, all do something similar, although none of them have a peer system campus outside of Ann Arbor, Madison, Charlottesville, or Chapel Hill like we do in LA to compete with. They're all known athletically simply by their state's name. On football helmets, the script "Cal" is gorgeous and fitting - both in terms of identification and actual space for the letters. Works great for other helmeted sports also. For all sports, a script "California" across the chest is perfectly wonderful. You could even have "Berkeley" in smaller type beneath the script "California" if you insist on tying the academic and athletic aspects of the university a bit closer together, and to more distinguish them from other UC schools. But you would still refer to the sports teams simply as "California". And "Cal" will always remain a great nickname for "California"!
As others have noted, UC Berkeley (or just Berkeley) is near universally regarded as one of the 6 premier academics- and research-focused universities in the English-speaking world (along with Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Oxford, and Cambridge). Nobody anywhere, when considering the university from an academic perspective, refers to it as anything other than UC Berkeley or Berkeley. When my wife's family in London heard that our son was accepted to and is attending Berkeley this year (math, physics, and music major), they all went absolutely bonkers with pride - such is the esteem the school is held in on the other side of the Pond and elsewhere. It was exactly equal to our nephew getting accepted to Cambridge this year. For them, college athletics in its entirety is maddingly confusing - it's almost non-existent outside of the US. They would not have distinguished "Cal" from Adam from an academic perspective. No sense whatsoever in confusing the 99% of the world's population that does not follow Cal sports at all by putting out some new tag that mixes the Cal and UC Berkeley brands - it might even detract from the UC Berkeley (or Berkeley) academic brand. In all honesty, if a plurality or even majority of the US population does not currently identify Cal and UC Berkeley as the same school, so what? Not everyone in the States follows college athletics and/or college academics anyway, so why force the issue? Who cares if most of the country, for example, does not identify Old Miss with the University of Mississippi at Oxford?
Anyway, for the sports folks, get them hooked on "California" athletics - the script "Cal" on football and other helmets should cement "Cal" with "California" in their minds. Slipping in a small-type "Berkeley" beneath "California" on those jerseys will help tie athletic and academic ends together if that were deemed necessary/important. For the rest of the world that knows us as UC Berkeley or Berkeley, leave well enough alone and don't confuse the issue with yet another brand. This is an elite academic institution that does not need to make excuses for its brand or name.
Sorry this was so wordy. I'm like that sometimes:(
I like UC Berkeley= California = Cal. Cal Berkeley is the worst option. Everyone in the academic world knows UC Berkeley. Internationally the University of California is synonymous with UC Berkeley, so in my opinion it would cheapen the name by calling it Cal Berkeley. As I once saw on a tshirt, THE University of California is in Berkeley. The reason people don't necessarily associate Cal and California with UC Berkeley is because the mediocre quality of the football and basketball product. Leave well enough alone. I foresee, 5 years from now, having a to rebrand as Classic Cal or Classic UC Berkeley.
The only people who think Cal should change to some other name did not go to Cal, plain & simple. Their opinions are not worth one scintilla of consideration. Enough of stupid articles like this one.
I wish we could post graphics here... I say they should have saved half of what they probably paid the consultants and put a 10-story tall banner in Times Square, ala U of O's Joey Harrington which reads (in the appropriate scripts & fonts)
Cal
=
California
=
UC Berkeley
=
University of California
=
University of California, Berkeley
=
Berkeley
=
#1 Public University in America
(In exhaustively researching this before posting, I discovered Oregon did it again just last month with a poster of Bo Nix. Never heard about it. Maybe not such a great promotional effort afterall...)
The historical branding malfeasance is already baked in and inescapable, so Cal/California falls flat anywhere outside The Bay, and Berkeley/UC Berkeley only pays homage to academics. Cal Berkeley is the salty pill we need to make a national brand possible.
Should've been California Berkeley. There are simply too many people who think Berkeley is part of the cal state system. And Cal has no meaning outside of the US or even California.
Similarly, outside of college sports fans who know the two entities, who really stops to acknowledge the different systems in which Arizona and ASU operate, Michigan and Michigan State operate or North Carolina and NC State operate? People who care to learn about it can do so, and that’s fine. Interesting that Auburn is a public state school in Alabama and Rutgers is a public state school in New Jersey. Do their names have more heft because of the single word moniker they use? I could see that argument. Interesting to learn about. But, it seems when we get in the practice of comparing ourselves to other institutions, we sometimes would do well to realize that everything the University of California, Berkeley uniquely encompasses makes our multiple and varied naming ways not such a bad fit. If folks either 1.) envy a special naming custom used by the “prestigious” Ivy League/most private schools (and therefore want to just call themselves “Berkeley”) because it seems more prestigious or 2.) you believe it’s a good idea to officially change the athletic name to incorporate the Berkeley name so you are more widely understood when you say “I went to Berkeley”), I get it. But, I don’t agree it’s a reason to change the athletic branding. The University of California or Cal (for short) is its own thing that’s hella special and wonderful. Leave it alone. Go Bears! (or, will that be changed too, because some people are tired of explaining to people in the Midwest that they’re not referring to the Chicago Bears).
Upon further reflection I really hate “Cal Berkeley” and I honestly think the name “Berkeley” is about to hit the chopping block. I personally hate the constant renaming of things for past sins, but given that I prefer Cal anyway, this is not a hill I will die on. Besides, “Cal Berkeley” makes us sound like a state school.
The people who originally mismanaged the University of California name and allowed this to turn into such a mess should be drawn and quartered.
Become a relevant athletic program and you can call yourselves whatever you want.
Fact: the majority of Cal's players in both of its primary money-earning sports (football and men’s basketball) are black. Fact: George Berkeley (the namesake of our Berkeley), in addition to being an esteemed philosopher, was a white supremacist. He was a plantation owner. He bought and enslaved black people, whom he used to build his own wealth on his New England plantation. After much research and introspection, I believe the proposal by California Hall is both ignorant and absolutely insulting. For one, unless the committee that is recommending "Cal Berkeley" as our new athletic branding has asked every current black player and prospective black athlete that has been recruited to play for Cal the following question, this naming recommendation is not only a gross insult but also extremely poor judgment - Question for current and prospective black student-athletes who are either 1.) at this time performing for Cal or 2.) considering entering Cal as a transfer or HS recruit: "Would you like the name 'Berkeley', our city's name but also a name that originates from a famous philosopher who happened to buy and enslave black people, to be added to all things pertaining to your sport (such as in the standings on ESPN's website, on your team jersey, on the fifty yard line, included in the half-court logo, etc.)?” If California Hall (or whoever makes the final decision on this matter) has not done so, this would be a crucial prerequisite (and you would do well to publish your results) before imposing this slave owner's name on all things Cal athletics. What I or other non-black alums feel about this issue is immaterial. Ask the people that it may most profoundly affect.
Let me do something that no Blue and Gold bleeding person ever does---which is quote someone from Stanford. “The American system of government is not perfect, because the founders were imperfect men. However, it’s delivered freedom to more people than any other form of government devised in human history. It is a remarkable story.” Who said it? Dr. Condoleezza Rice.
The founders of the University of California were also imperfect. So was George Berkeley. What is interesting today is---if you polled Americans and anyone in the world and asked---what does Berkeley mean? You would get many answers---from academic excellence, smart people, contrarian thinking, free speech, DIVERSITY and even hippies/counter culture. 99.9 percent of the answers would be positive. Yes, people complain about this and that (crime, homelessness, the line at Blondies, 4 missed field goals), but in my travels around the world, you say you are from or went to Berkeley---you get a positive reaction. Slave holders and white supremacy NEVER ever has come up. The fact is Berkeley has been rebranded and that is a positive thing. If George Berkeley came back to life--do you think he would be happy or mad at what he see at his namesake school? If he were a white supremacist---he would be unhappy. It would ruin his day. And isn't that the sweetest revenge?
Martin Luther King Jr. came to campus because what Berkeley stands for today vs what happened in 1728 when a plantation was purchased in Rhode Island (who knew Rhode Island allowed Slavery??). Again, as I said in an earlier post--California Hall does know that George Berkeley is an issue AND they are concerned about it. BUT, they also told me, they don't have to do anything unless the City of Berkeley changes its name, because all UCs are named after their cities.
BTW, this is a long way of saying, I agree with you the name should be the University of California or California for short for the sports teams. But in a professional setting or travels, I always say I went to Berkeley.
To wit, always has been, always should be CALIFORNIA: https://www.espn.com/college-football/preview?gameId=401524018
Happy something is being done, as nobody knows Cal and UC Berkeley are synonymous, but it's a mistake to change the academic institution.
For athletics, Cal Berkeley works. Just add "Berkeley" below the "Cal" on helmets etc.
The University, for academics, stays the same.
The connection is Berkeley, people will connect the two easily.
It is patently false that “nobody knows Cal and UC Berkeley are the same”. Some people don’t know it. Millions do. There are some people that don’t know Ole Miss and the University of Mississippi are the same. Big f-ing deal. Just ask Kirk Herbstreit. He has championed “Cal” throughout his time at ESPN, argued against Mack Brown’s usurpation of the Rose Bowl, etc. NOBODY covering Cal in the national spotlight (basketball, football, swimming, rugby) on TV has ever thrown shade on the Cal brand, and it is freely offered that the campus is in Berkeley. Sure, some people might not be educated on what Cal is, but this is not a reason to mess with the Cal brand, which is, by the way, awesome. If you want to inform the people you meet that you went to “Cal Berkeley” or “Berkeley,” you do you.
Based on the 26 years I spent in academia, IMO it is generally a bad idea to let non-university, business-marketing people do any sort of marketing or branding for a university. They just don't understand the difference between marketing/branding in the commercial space versus universities (the latter of which rely more on reputation building around excellence than traditional media buys). Traditional marketing is OK for non-traditional student spaces (such as online degrees and certificates), but does not work as well for attracting traditional students and dollars. A bit is OK for athletics, but don't let them make the choices. They should be listening to alumni and faculty, not some overpaid consultants. Also always blew my mind how they would screw faculty on pay and then overpay some business marketing blowhards, under the excuse that it comes from different pools of money.
The ONLY people I have ever heard complain about Cal being Cal are faculty at other UCs (especially UCLA). But why should we do anything to placate UCLA? If anything, now is the time to take the University of California back. Mix in a little Berkeley association here and there (for athletics) and use UC Berkeley for academics...but NO "Cal Berkeley".
“The University of California” is the best, but I would also say it’s okay that there are different ways to refer to this dear and diverse institution. People are acting like it’s a serious problem that they have to educate others around the world on the various names. It’s a unique Cal thing. I, for one, am fine with the experience of announcing that I attended the University of California, Berkeley and that we affectionately refer to our alma mater as Cal. Sports teams should not be beholden to one or the other, IMHO. It turns out we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Multiplicity is not necessarily a bad thing. Personally, I have never used the term “Cal Berkeley.” It’s the worst of the various proposed rebranding names. It does not roll off the tongue, fist of all, as it just sounds like a nickname coupled with another word; there is a reason most of us alums have not typically used this in our conversations throughout our lives. Further, using this in all athletic circles diminishes the name of the University by making it akin to UNC Charlotte, Wisconsin Green Bay, UC Irvine (nothing against the Anteaters), etc., i.e. just a secondary campus among many.
Two contradictions about Cal Berkeley:
1) They want to honor the entire UC system and not claim “The University of California” title but then recommend “Cal Berkeley” which makes us sound like a state school.
2) They make the point that other schools don’t have a different brand for athletics. Ok great point, let’s see how other flagship universities brand themselves as: Michigan, Washington, Virginia, Florida, Arizona, etc etc.
Just keep Cal and allow reference to UC Berkeley and the general public will catch on. And thanks for the shoutout.
The University of California. It’s the best one, and it’s not close.
Is this still up for discussion with the big wigs?
The University of California. That is all. The original just like The Ohio State. Cal for short works fine. Cal Berkeley makes it sound too close to a Cal State campus—bad idea.
"Cal Berkeley" does not roll off the tongue well at all as a sports brand. It's actually snooty sounding. It also leaves the school open to mis-identification as a Cal State Fill-in-the-Blank school (most of which, by the way, are actually terrific schools, but for UC Berkeley's athletic branding - NO!). A rebranding of athletics using "California" seems the best approach here. The universities of Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, and North Carolina, for example, all do something similar, although none of them have a peer system campus outside of Ann Arbor, Madison, Charlottesville, or Chapel Hill like we do in LA to compete with. They're all known athletically simply by their state's name. On football helmets, the script "Cal" is gorgeous and fitting - both in terms of identification and actual space for the letters. Works great for other helmeted sports also. For all sports, a script "California" across the chest is perfectly wonderful. You could even have "Berkeley" in smaller type beneath the script "California" if you insist on tying the academic and athletic aspects of the university a bit closer together, and to more distinguish them from other UC schools. But you would still refer to the sports teams simply as "California". And "Cal" will always remain a great nickname for "California"!
As others have noted, UC Berkeley (or just Berkeley) is near universally regarded as one of the 6 premier academics- and research-focused universities in the English-speaking world (along with Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Oxford, and Cambridge). Nobody anywhere, when considering the university from an academic perspective, refers to it as anything other than UC Berkeley or Berkeley. When my wife's family in London heard that our son was accepted to and is attending Berkeley this year (math, physics, and music major), they all went absolutely bonkers with pride - such is the esteem the school is held in on the other side of the Pond and elsewhere. It was exactly equal to our nephew getting accepted to Cambridge this year. For them, college athletics in its entirety is maddingly confusing - it's almost non-existent outside of the US. They would not have distinguished "Cal" from Adam from an academic perspective. No sense whatsoever in confusing the 99% of the world's population that does not follow Cal sports at all by putting out some new tag that mixes the Cal and UC Berkeley brands - it might even detract from the UC Berkeley (or Berkeley) academic brand. In all honesty, if a plurality or even majority of the US population does not currently identify Cal and UC Berkeley as the same school, so what? Not everyone in the States follows college athletics and/or college academics anyway, so why force the issue? Who cares if most of the country, for example, does not identify Old Miss with the University of Mississippi at Oxford?
Anyway, for the sports folks, get them hooked on "California" athletics - the script "Cal" on football and other helmets should cement "Cal" with "California" in their minds. Slipping in a small-type "Berkeley" beneath "California" on those jerseys will help tie athletic and academic ends together if that were deemed necessary/important. For the rest of the world that knows us as UC Berkeley or Berkeley, leave well enough alone and don't confuse the issue with yet another brand. This is an elite academic institution that does not need to make excuses for its brand or name.
Sorry this was so wordy. I'm like that sometimes:(
Everyone's thinking too small.
Berkeley is not big enough.
Not even the state of California.
Let's claim the entire country.
We're now the University of The United States of America, California, Berkeley.
If we're not careful this could get shortened to USC Berkeley ... oh the horror! ;)
I like UC Berkeley= California = Cal. Cal Berkeley is the worst option. Everyone in the academic world knows UC Berkeley. Internationally the University of California is synonymous with UC Berkeley, so in my opinion it would cheapen the name by calling it Cal Berkeley. As I once saw on a tshirt, THE University of California is in Berkeley. The reason people don't necessarily associate Cal and California with UC Berkeley is because the mediocre quality of the football and basketball product. Leave well enough alone. I foresee, 5 years from now, having a to rebrand as Classic Cal or Classic UC Berkeley.
The only people who think Cal should change to some other name did not go to Cal, plain & simple. Their opinions are not worth one scintilla of consideration. Enough of stupid articles like this one.
Nope
I wish we could post graphics here... I say they should have saved half of what they probably paid the consultants and put a 10-story tall banner in Times Square, ala U of O's Joey Harrington which reads (in the appropriate scripts & fonts)
Cal
=
California
=
UC Berkeley
=
University of California
=
University of California, Berkeley
=
Berkeley
=
#1 Public University in America
(In exhaustively researching this before posting, I discovered Oregon did it again just last month with a poster of Bo Nix. Never heard about it. Maybe not such a great promotional effort afterall...)
The historical branding malfeasance is already baked in and inescapable, so Cal/California falls flat anywhere outside The Bay, and Berkeley/UC Berkeley only pays homage to academics. Cal Berkeley is the salty pill we need to make a national brand possible.
Never!!
"C̶a̶l̶ ̶B̶e̶r̶k̶e̶l̶e̶y̶ Winning is the s̶a̶l̶t̶y̶ ̶p̶i̶l̶l̶ solution we need to make a national brand possible."
FTFY
Should've been California Berkeley. There are simply too many people who think Berkeley is part of the cal state system. And Cal has no meaning outside of the US or even California.
Never met anyone that associated Berkeley with a Cal State campus.
I've met many.
say Cal in LA and they’ll ask you which cal state
I have lived in socal for 30 + years. I have never heard that. Maybe it depends on the circles within which one associates.
> There are simply too many people who think Berkeley is part of the cal state system
This is blatantly false. Everybody knows Berkeley is a UC. Now for the number of people who think "Cal" is part of the Cal State system...
News flash: Most people outside the Cal University and Cal State systems do not know there is a difference, much less what it is. Fewer care.
Similarly, outside of college sports fans who know the two entities, who really stops to acknowledge the different systems in which Arizona and ASU operate, Michigan and Michigan State operate or North Carolina and NC State operate? People who care to learn about it can do so, and that’s fine. Interesting that Auburn is a public state school in Alabama and Rutgers is a public state school in New Jersey. Do their names have more heft because of the single word moniker they use? I could see that argument. Interesting to learn about. But, it seems when we get in the practice of comparing ourselves to other institutions, we sometimes would do well to realize that everything the University of California, Berkeley uniquely encompasses makes our multiple and varied naming ways not such a bad fit. If folks either 1.) envy a special naming custom used by the “prestigious” Ivy League/most private schools (and therefore want to just call themselves “Berkeley”) because it seems more prestigious or 2.) you believe it’s a good idea to officially change the athletic name to incorporate the Berkeley name so you are more widely understood when you say “I went to Berkeley”), I get it. But, I don’t agree it’s a reason to change the athletic branding. The University of California or Cal (for short) is its own thing that’s hella special and wonderful. Leave it alone. Go Bears! (or, will that be changed too, because some people are tired of explaining to people in the Midwest that they’re not referring to the Chicago Bears).