I’ve got a great story for everyone:

My wife tells me Wednesday night “Hey, I’m going to take the boys to their grandparents next weekend and you can come if you want but I’m going to be studying for my Master’s test” (She’s finishing up a master’s degree in Spanish.)

And I say, “Hey! I purposely canceled a bunch of trips to road Cal games because you wanted me home as much as possible during the last trimester of your pregnancy, and now you’re going to stick me at home alone!?!”

And she says, “Oh, I forgot that this was the Oregon game weekend… well why don’t you plan to go on short notice?”

And I said, “Oh yeah!?!… um… um… I love you too!”

So then I said to myself, “You really need to stop talking to yourself.”

But then I ignored me and said “Hey, why don’t you call your boss at Rivals and see if they’ve got anyone covering the game… I mean, they probably do, but it’s worth a shot.”

So I did and yesterday I got back the reply, “You’re in! Our regular guy has a family conflict that weekend.”

And I say (to myself… see it’s a real problem) “SWEEEEEEEEEEET! Not only do I get to go, I get to go for free and do the press box and see the players and coaches again.”

And then I say to myself (ugh… this is getting really bad): “Hey, my brother is going to the game with his roommate. Why don’t you see if you can bum a ride from him and crash in his hotel room? Then the trip will be REALLY free.”

So I e-mail him and he says, “Sounds good, just buy us dinner Friday night or something”

And I say (this time to Brian), “I like Pizza! You’re on.”

All of this is just a fun way to say that I’ll be covering the Oregon game from the press box and will be able to do post-game interviews of the players and coaches. Last year I would always ask before press conferences and other interview opportunities if there any questions my blog readers would like to see answered. Consider this post the place to do that.

As many of you know, last year I was the lead reporter for Rival’s Cal site. Unfortunately for me, and to be honest fortunately for Rival’s subscribers, Rivals shook up the management of the Cal site and I took on a transitional role why the new editors were getting in place professional writers. As a part time writer with a full time job as an engineer outside of the Bay Area I just couldn’t cover the Bears extensively enough to be a one man show. All the while, the new editor was fairly happy with my writing but knew that I wasn’t the future of the site, so let me go in the off-season with the hope that maybe I could do some supplimental work in the fall.

That was the bad news.

The good news is that we came to an agreement earlier this week for me to write analysis and preview articles for the team and my first article, a statistical preview of the Arizona game, is posted now. Of course like most Rivals articles, they require a subscription to read the whole thing.

Expect to see about 2 articles a week at Rivals from me for the rest of the season. (So it’s time to renew your Rival’s subscriptions. 🙂 )

For those who remember the dramatic drop-off in my blogging last year, fear not. I didn’t say much about it at the time because of the nature of the situation, but I was under a lot of pressure to write A LOT more articles than I could. I just couldn’t justify posting on the blog when I was getting a pay-check for something that they weren’t happy with the level of my output. This year things are structured differently, I’m only doing two articles a week, and I’m not the lead writer. Basically my content is seen as a nice addition but nothing critical to the sucess of the Rivals page. There will be plenty of blogging here. Plus we’ve got Jason’s always awesome content to suppliment mine.

Man, could this case get any weirder? There has now been a bomb threat at the courthouse where the trail is occuring. There are two sources to read.

The first is the Oakland Tribune here. From their text it appears the bomb threat may have been more than a threat because it includes both that re-enforcements have come in and that an unidentified object was detonated. I know that sometimes they do that even when they don’t know if there is a bomb inside an unidentified bag or box or something.

The second report comes from Chris Avery of BearInsider.com:

“What little we know is that sometime very early this morning someone pasted a notice on the front door of the courthouse saying that a bomb had been planted.

My first indication that something was wrong was the police car that planted itself horizontally across the road to block all traffic in front to the courthouse – and blocked my access to the parking area.

I skirted a few blocks, got parked, and started walking toward the courthouse – thinking maybe a fire had occurred – and that it would probably be under control shortly – I was prepared to wait a short while if needed.

But when I got within a block or so of the courthouse, others standing around said that no one was being allowed any closer to the building in case an explosion occurred. We were then asked by the police to move back inside a large concrete parking structure that could provide some shelter in case there was an explosion.”

Note that there is no explicit information that the bomb was planted for any reason having to do with the Cal trial. It could be that it has nothing to do with it. Personally it seems that it is too high of a coincidence for it to be anything but related to the trial. At the same time the Tribune article states that this is not the first time this has happened. Of course since they didn’t give a recent example, it also seems that it has been a while since it has happened, re-increasing the level of coincidence if this was indeed not related to the Cal trial. Nevertheless, we should remain cautious and not over-speculate until we have more details. None of the other news outlets are covering the story so far.

As of 11:30, the courthouse was still closed.

Are you ready for a beat-down?

I think there’s no other way to say this than that. I had more concerns about both Colorado State and Louisiana Tech than I do about Arizona. I feel that way because I know that the team isn’t taking Arizona that lightly after last year’s debacle. Let’s look at some of the factors that point to a Cal beat-down victory:

• Arizona is only averaging 26.3 points per game, and only 17 points per game if you take out their hollow victory over I-AA Northern Arizona.
• Their loses are to 1-2 BYU and 2-1 New Mexico. Said another way, between Arizona and their opponents, the only I-A victory outside of the 3 is New Mexico over New Mexico State
• Their defense gave up 24 points to Northern Arizona.
• Their offense is only rushing for 75.7 yards per game.

I could go on and on.

This is one horrible team. I mean, just look at my head to head stats page. The supposed strength of their team has turned out to be their weakness, if that’s at all possible. Their new spread offense isn’t working, and they’re throwing the ball so much it’ll be easy for the Bears to sit back in zone coverage and keep them under control all day. Add in that my gut says that the Cal offense will hit its stride this week and I’m thinking 50 points may be a conservative number, not so much because they’ll deserve that many points, but because they’ll be a lot of 3 and outs on the other side of the ball. Finally add in that Arizona is clearly demoralized after starting the season with mildly high expectations and all Cal has to do is put up a couple of easy scores early and this game is over.

Nope, no repeat this year. Arizona is going down and going down hard.

Cal 45, Arizona 10 (revised up from my Pick’Em pick of 24-10 now that it’s clear the Arizona defense isn’t going to measure up)

Scout has their daily court hearing article up.

Day 2 seems to have gone much better for the University than day 1. Each of the matters discussed the University seemed to have the upper hand and the City’s complaint was weak at best, grasping at straws on average. Are they really arguing that because the Regents approved the project financially, with the caveat that an EIR must be completed and approved, before the EIR was finalized/approved, the whole thing should be thrown out? That’s the type of crummy argument I’ve been expecting to hear from these idiots.

I was also glad to see that all of their complaints about not recirculating the EIR after data was added was entirely focused on the seismic data. I was concerned that other additional info was added that may have more teeth to it. Since the additions were additions that the judge specifically asked for and confirmed with the original EIR stated, I’m pretty hopeful that this won’t trip up the University’s case.

Finally, “you guys have a sub-committee that approves EIR and that’s not… um… fair?” argument is also ridiculous. Every governmental entity in the country, INCLUDING THE CITY OF BERKELEY, has a sub-committee for their building approvals.

So all in all, this was a much better day in court than the first, not that the City needs anything but one good day in court to win their case… although I’ve always felt it helps to have the bad news as early as possible.

Finally, as expected, this hearing is going to drag on longer than every originally hoped. It looks like next Tuesday is the earliest it’ll complete. With that long of a hearing, it’s going to take the judge a while to brief all of the data and make a decision.

Scout has posted an article on the first day of the trial.

It’s hard to know from the article just how well things are going. Frequent commentor Joshiemac is rightly concerned that the city is arguing that a “common sense” definition of adding and altering should be used and the University is arguing for the building code, particulaly when the judge said that common sense (notice no quotes) definitions should be used in favor of both legislative intent and experts, in that order.

That said, I don’t think it is as bad as it might seem. First of all the “common sense” the city is using isn’t common sense at all. I’m sorry, no common sense argument would suggest that I’m modifying my house when I replace the sidewalk around it or build a detatched garage and put a walkway between the two, which is basically what the city is arguing, that the extended walkway around the stadium that is the roof of the SAHPC is a change to the stadium itself. Just because the city is using the words “common sense” doesn’t mean their argument is. Also, notice that the three items the judge listed to choose between (common sense, legislative intent, and expert opinion), none of them are actual law. In other words, this is what should be used in the case where the law does not have a definition for words used in legislation. While the specific law in question does not specifically define what an addition or alteration is, there are other California laws that do. So this is not common sense versus the experts, this is “common sense” versus the laws of California, a significant difference.

I will say this, either Chris Avery is doing a bad job of explaining the University’s legal arguments or the University is not doing a very good job making its case. Why isn’t there a rebutal about whether the city’s “common sense” argument is indeed common sense, particularly after the judge indicates that that common sense is primary? Why is it that they’re not saying that expert opinion is not the same thing as California law that defines these words in a very relevant sense? Mr. Avery admits that he’s no lawyer, he’s a sports reporter, and so it may be that these arguments are being made, but in ways that either don’t come across in the article or that he didn’t understand amongst all the legal language. Said another way, I don’t fault Mr. Avery if he’s not properly reporting all the legal nuances. He’s doing better than Carolyn Jones at the Chronicle or whatever flunky the Oakland Tribune has sent over. This is difficult stuff to explain, particularly in a condensed form like an article.

The final note to bring up is that it looks like the trial will split over at least into Friday and the judge is already putting contingencies in place in case the trail needs to go until Monday or Tuesday. The length of the trial also seems to be extending everyone’s ruling expectations to at least two weeks if not more. In other words, a decision the week of the Oregon State game seems to be the earliest possible scenario.

Below I gave a quick rundown on the court case, linking to the BearInsider analysis, and said I would give detailed analysis of the 7 arguments the City of Berkeley has made. I’ll admit up front, I’m an Engineer not a Lawyer. We think logically, pragmatically and as outside the box as possible so as to be innovative. Lawyers think inside a box they’ve defined for themselves that doesn’t seem to make much sense until you’ve been fully acclimated inside the box. With that caveat in mind, here’s the list with arguments and my perception of its validity:

1. • ARGUMENT: Of the seven projects covered by the EIR, only one is described in any detail – the SAHPC. And that fatally damages UC’s EIR because CEQA requires complete descriptions of proposed projects in EIRs. The stadium retrofit is not described in any detail and cost estimates are not supplied, thus making the EIR – and compliance with the 50% AP rule – impossible to evaluate. Therefore the EIR is invalid because it does not comply with CEQA or present an “accurate, stable, and finite description” for each project it covers.
   • VALIDITY: This seems like really two arguments. The 2nd about valuation of the stadium seems to have two pieces, one of which is covered in item #4 (is the SAHPC part of the stadium?) and the other is how much the stadium is worth. The valuation of the stadium worries me because it seems that there are lots of different ways to go about this. The “Stanford only paid $100 million for theirs” is garbage because it wasn’t a complete rebuild and doesn’t have the seating capacity of Memorial. Nevertheless, the valuation of the stadium could go poorly particularly considering its condition. As for the 1st argument, the fact that the other six projects covered in the EIR aren’t explained in detail seems troublesome if true. What I don’t know is how strong that argument is or if they’re falsely understating the detail of the 6 other projects. Even still, it seems that the University could wiggle out of this one even if the City is correct by limiting the project to just the SAHPC with a new EIR to be submitted later for the remaining projects. In fact, it may be that it has been a backup-plan of the University all along to submit further EIRs when the other projects get rolling. In summary, this one, although worrisome, seems like is it can be overcome, the worry is if the judge’s ruling makes re-scoping the EIR a time consuming process.
2. • ARGUMENT: Many aspects of the project are not described at all. In one illustration, the consequences of a collapse from an earthquake of the western wall of the stadium onto the SAHPC are not described.
   • VALIDITY: What is unclear in this is if the example provided is the majority of the complaint or if it just one of many. On its own, the wall falling on the SAHPC seems to me to be a joke of an argument and won’t be taken seriously since the 2nd half of the project is to seismically retrofit the stadium thereby preventing such as collapse. Although it seems that the there is a troublesome “combo argument” here in that if the University dumps the 6 other projects, then from the EIR’s perspective, the stadium renovation is not part of the project and so accounting for an un-renovated stadium should be part of the EIR. Overall, it seems troublesome although not without reasonable hope that a logical judge will handle this appropriately.
3. • ARGUMENT: Cal has over time added some information to their EIR, but they did not then recirculate it to the public as CEQA requires.
     Project alternatives (for example locations) described by UC in the EIR were deliberately chosen to be unattractive or infeasible, and those that were selected were so incompletely described as to not comply with the CEQA requirements.
   • VALIDITY: I have a tough time viewing this one objectively because it seems like a huge violation of property owner’s rights. Who has the authority to tell a land owner what they can do with the land and whether it is “best alternative”? Who are they to judge which alternative is best? WE DECIDED this is the best alternative. All the court should be doing is deciding if it is legal. Problem is… I know how jacked up our laws are and don’t doubt for a second that somewhere, somehow an outsider gets to force an alternative option on a land owner. This is another one I fear because the wrong judge could view this and say, “Yeah, what’s wrong with Golden Gate fields?” as if they have any right to force a decision like that on the University.
4. • ARGUMENT: UC has argued that the California Building Code definitions of which structures are independent should apply to this case, but those apply only to new structures – and there is no evidence the legislature intended that standard when they passed the Alquist-Priolo law. Therefore common sense definitions of the words should apply – and the SAHPC unquestionably “alters” the stadium and is therefore part of the stadium retrofit.
   • VALIDITY: It seems pretty ridiculous to me that someone can argue in a California court that the California Building Code is not the right place to go for the definition of what constitutes a new structure. Additionally, I don’t see how any “common sense” definition suggests that the two structures are in fact one. They’re clearly separate. This is one I worry least about, even more so now that I’ve read that it is the City who is going against what the California Building Code suggests.
5. • ARGUMENT: The seismic testing Cal did during the preparation of the EIR was inadequate, and this has been conclusively documented by the USGS letter that arrived after the EIR was approved by the Regents. The letter shows that the “footprint” of the SAHPC was not fully proven to be fault free at the time the EIR was approved, and that invalidates the EIR.
   • VALIDITY: On the surface, this one worries me a great deal until I add in the judges actions to date. Either the judge is a complete “tease” or it’s pretty reasonable to assume that the additional testing that the judge suggested will be allowed as a suppliment to the original EIR, especially since it confirms the findings of the original EIR.
6. • ARGUMENT: No seismic testing has been done at the site of the proposed parking garage, yet that garage is one of the 7 projects listed in the EIR. Since new structures are forbidden on active faults by AP law, and because UC has not yet done any seismic testing there, the EIR is invalid because only real and feasible projects can be documented in a properly done EIR; UC does not even know yet whether they have a project there or not.
   • VALIDITY: This one goes up or down with complaint #1. Either the University will be able to dump the baggage of the other 6 projects or they’ll not be able to. The only impact of this complaint in my mind is that it increases the likelihood that the University has to dump some of the other projects, particularly the parking garage. It does seem pretty reasonable to me that if the law requires that no structure be built on a fault then there should have been some testing to prove that… that is unless for some reason I’m not aware, the fault line is at at such a agressive angle away from the Maxwell field than is my understanding.

So it seems to me that the University has a reasonable case to make on all of the arguments. Why is it then that I have a very uneasy feeling in my stomack? Yeah I ate at the HP cafeteria again today, but the uneasiness is bigger than that. Is it because I just don’t trust judges? Is it that I don’t full understand the laws involved and so worry that there are some catches that I don’t understand? Or is it that as I read on another site that the protestors are professionals at working these EIR issues in court and ensuring that projects get delayed over and over again?

I don’t really know… but I’ll be watching the court case closely to see what transpires.

Could it be that this week is the most important week in Cal Bear history? Not the Arizona game… the SAHPC lawsuit!

On Wednesday and Thursday the judge will hear the arguments of both the University and the 3 suing entities (City of Berkeley, Panaramic Hill Association and the Save the Oaks Association). The judge has already received all of the written arguments from all sides.

To really understand the case, you need to read Chris Avery’s Article over at BearInsider.com. It’s excellent at explaining it. A key piece of info that I was unclear on is the importance of the accuracy of the EIR, not whether there are actually legal problems with the project. As an example, there was a lot of discussion early in the summer when the University submitted the updated earthquake fault testing particularly regarding some rumors that the new data “would not be allowed in court”. That statement was inaccurate. What was really being said was that because that data was not part of the original EIR, it doesn’t change whether the original EIR was invalid.

In the world of protestor delay tactics, invalidating the EIR is a big deal. In theory, invalidating the EIR for imcompleteness is no big deal because you can just write another one that addresses the areas that were not complete. However, in the complex land of power-plays and delay tactics it is a big deal because of the time it takes to do a new EIR with all the necessary public comment and review processes that must be re-done. Particularly since there is nothing that prevents the same parties from re-suing when the new EIR completes the review process and is approved, one can see how obstructionists can delay for decades using this technique even though they’ve never submitted an argument for why the actual project is against the law.

After reading the article, I’m much more concerned that the lawsuit is not going to go Cal’s way. Expect a post later today breaking down each of the City of Berkeley’s legal arguments.

In a much predicted selection, ABC selected the Cal at Oregon game for their 12:30 PM time slot on September 29th. This is shaping up to be a big game. Both teams are undefeated and should be undefeated after their matchups against Pac-10 bottom feeders Arizona and Stanford respectively this weekend. There is even speculation that ESPN’s GameDay crew will head to Eugene for their weekly preview show. ABC/ESPN will be airing the USC vs. Washington game at 5:00 PM as well on the same day.

Now that the traditional non-conference weeks of the season is over I’m going to start up a weekly item on the state of the Pac-10.

• The two frauds of the conference, albeit at different levels, were both exposed to be frauds. Of course no one expected Arizona to be one of the best in the conference, but there were a number who put them as the top of the 2nd tier teams. After their loses to BYU and more distressingly New Mexico AT HOME, they’re clearly back at the bottom of the barrel. If Arizona doesn’t turn it around before September is done, Stoops will need to buy stock in HP for all the resumes he’ll be printing up. Arizona’s boosters aren’t going to be satisfied with another November run that barely gets Arizona bowl eligible.
• The other fraud is of course UCLA. Their ranking leading up to this week was inexplicable. Just about every pundit admitted that UCLA was over-rated, but it never seemed to matter in the actual rankings. Everyone knew but didn’t want to admit it to themselves. Of course their drop from number 11 to number 30 after their 44-6 beat-down from winless Utah is proof that the voters knew but didn’t want to admit it.
• The positive surprise of the conference, at least to me, is Washington, even after the loss at home to Ohio State. Nobody expected Washington to amount to anything and it was only overly optimistic thoughts that led people to think they could upset Ohio State, so I don’t see that loss as a disappointment. Before the season began people thought they’d likely start the season, 1-6 and even that one win wasn’t a guarantee. They’ve already got 2 wins under their belt and there’s good reason they can win 2 of the next 4 and have the worst part of their schedule behind them. With the exception of the Cal game, there’s not reason to think they couldn’t win everyone of the rest of their 6 games.
• Oregon looks to be good, but they’re still a wildcard in my book. I’ve always thought highly of them and their talent, but they’ve had consistency problems. The fact that they beat an emotionally devestated Michigan and a usually stout but suspect Fresno State doesn’t impress me… yet. Of course it’s definitely looking like the Cal vs. Oregon game in two weeks is going to be a very important game. Just don’t be surprised if Cal comes away with just as convincing a win as they did last year. Oregon hasn’t proven themselves to me yet.
• Arizona State is the other big wildcard in my book. The difference to me is that ASU doesn’t have the hype that Oregon does. They could be every bit as good as Cal and Oregon or they could be weaker than Washington and OSU. Unfortunately they play all the worst teams in the conference first so unless they proof themselves to be as much of a fraud as UCLA by losing early, we won’t know anything about them until they play Cal at the end of October.
• Will the real Oregon State stand up please? So which team is the “real” OSU? Is it the team that handled the same Utah team that destroyed UCLA or is the team that got hanlded by a middle of the road Cincinati team? Or perhaps their win of I-AA Idaho State, despite a score in the 60’s, doesn’t mean anything. So far they look like the standard Oregon State: Strong enough to beat just about anyone in the conference when the chips fall right (and they love the spoiler role) but not good enough to win on a consistant basis.
• Washington State seems to be similar to Oregon State although a notch lower on the totem pole. I expect them to come up with one signature win and that’s about the end of it. Let’s put it this way, I’m glad Cal has them at home, just like with Oregon State. That said, I’m not expecting them to play in a bowl, although they just might sneak into bowl eligibility with a 6-6 record.
• Wrapping up the last couple teams, USC continues to be the team to beat. I don’t know if they have what it takes to go undefeated this year, particularly with how many strong or dangerous teams there are in the Pac-10, but they’re still the favorites to win the Pac-10 until/unless Oregon, Cal or potentially ASU upset them (the rest of the teams, even if they can pull the upset, couldn’t win the Pac-10).
• Finally, Stanford… has Arizona gotten so bad to lift Stanford out of the basement? It’s hard to tell because from all appearances, San Jose State stinks and one can’t determine much from Stanford’s “lauded” victory over them. All I can say is that they’re not good. I’m not sure that they’re 1-11 bad, but I still see a 3-4 win ceiling for them. The trees will consider 4 wins a success.

Watching the TV footage to round out my commentary. Here are my thoughts:

• Wasn’t that opening kickoff return a thing of beauty? I like how Cal has been returning to their “Tedford roots” of running some trick plays early to get the opposition off-balance early. Hawkins definitely showed his speed on that one too. I thought for sure that last tackler had the angle on him until ‘The Hawk’ turned on the jets.
• There were some complaints about how the defense seems to all too often come out of the starting blocks slowly and have to make adjustments to finally shutdown the opposition. While that doesn’t bother me as much as it bothers some, the defense didn’t leave room for that criticism yesterday. That first series was one of the most painful 3-and-outs I’ve seen in a long time.
• That Longshore fumble on their first offensive possession was eerily remniscent of the Tennessee fumble on their first possession. Luckily for us it didn’t turn out the same way.
• It seems this year that every time we have a penalty this year it is on 3rd down. Add in that yesterday they always seemed to stall the drive and we need to clean-up those penalties.
• That fumble… er… incomplete… that was just HORRIBLE. Ridiculously HORRIBLE. Worse call than last year’s Oregon vs. Oklahoma… particularly bad in the replay booth. I can’t imaging ANYTHING that justifies them calling that incomplete. What a joke. It looked even worse on TV than it did in person with the JumboTron replay. BTW, way to go Pawlawski on sticking to his guns in the TV commentary and calling a spade a spade. Too many announcers backtrack after the officials make their call as to not sound too critical of the referees.
• OK, maybe Pawlawski is just a Cal homer (who can blame a former Cal QB for that?). That 2nd booth review was not as clear cut as he made it seem. It was marginal but it is at least reasonable to say that the ball hit the ground in between Jordan’s arms. Not nearly as clear cut as the fumble… er… incomplete.
• Longshore lost his touch earlier than I remembered, early 2nd quarter. He had two really bad throws and two more that if he had put it on the numbers would have either kept the drive alive or scored a TD.
• Poor Jordan Kay. He’s done great for us in relief of Schneider, so good that one wondered if he might have a shot at challenging for the starting job. That slight pull on the 39 yarder, probably put him on the sideline for the remainder of the season once Schneider is back. Hold your head high Kay! We’re looking forward to seein you with the starting job next season.
• Forsett had a great run inside to take the ball to the LT 2. He’s getting better and better at not going down on first contact and there’s no better play to show it this year than that one. To be able to stay on his feet as 3+ guys tried to wrap him up and be able to wait for your line to come in an push you for another 4 or 5 yards, that takes skill.
• Forsett again… his 2nd TD. For some reason I didn’t mention him much in my podcast, which is just my thoughts as they come to me, but Forsett really caried the team. He not only ran well himself, he also provided a spark for the rest of the team. His consistency covered for Longshore’s inconsistency and gave the defense plenty of rest between their possessions.
• One really has to give LT credit for their 1st half TD drive. They mixed things up, executed well and played up-tempo. Not a drive to be concerned about the defense.
• The one thing I really worried about with the loss of Damien Hughes was that none of the secondard seemed to have the ability to sniff out those interception opportunities. As such it was really nice to see Hampton pick off that ball. That was an opportunity that easily could have been missed. Hopefully it is a sign of things to come. Never underestimate the importance of the ability to create turnovers.
• I was really surprised that Cal continued to put on the heat with a minute left in the 1st half. That’s usually “take a knee” time for Tedford. I’m not sure whether I really like it or not, but it’s not really a big deal.
• Tedford’s pre-halftime interview was awesome. After being asked about the number of penalties, “that’s EXACTLY what we’re going talk about… it’s not going to be pleasant at halftime.” Awesome.
• How cool was it that in the background of the interview with DeSean’s father that Hail to California was being performed? One could even hear the crowd singing the final verse. It was better than the interview itself.
• The 2nd LT touchdown drive is a little more disappointing for the Bear’s defense. They were getting pushed around by the LT offensive line for no good reason. Add in the horrible over-pursuit by the corner on the TD pass that not only missed the tackle, but took out the other Cal defender with a shot at the receiver.
• I have a hard time saying this, but I really think that Jahvid Best has the potential to be the best Cal running back ever. Better than Marshawn. Better than Muncie. Better than Russel White. That guy has the wheels of DeSean but the tackle breaking ability of Marshawn and seems to have the potential to have Marshawn-esque balance. He’s also got the good hands needed to catch the ball out of the backfield. With this much talent on the Bear’s offense, how is it that this guy is getting playing time and scoring touchdowns? It’s because he’s THAT good.
• You know, it wasn’t Jackson’s punt return attempts that most soured me to his play, it was the catches. He was doing WAY too much juking and not enough just getting what yardage he can. Run DeSean Run! You’re the fastest guy out there… just run!
• A big reason the LT score was so low was because of the turnovers. At least two of the turnovers came on LT possessions when they seemed to be having success moving the ball.
• It was good to see so many 2nd stringers get time in the 4th quarter… particularly Riley at QB. He played like someone who was receiving his first snaps, but that’s the point, let’s not see those first snaps when it is important. I think the kid has potential… with some more time to develop and get some scratch time snaps.

After going through the game a second time, I find myself more impressed than the first time. Just like Jason, I think it is an indication of just how expectations are in Berkeley that we can leave a game with a score 42-12 and leave feeling flat. Now it’s time to get ready to Arizona. Tennessee may have been about redemption… Arizona is about REVENGE.

I would not have thought this would be the case, but Cal leapfrogged both Texas and Wisconson in today’s AP poll. Texas won a close one against Central Florida, having to come from behind in the 4th quarter, and Wisconson won a close one against The Citidel. I’m not completely surprised by Wisconsin as Cal was fairly close, points wise to the formerly #7 team. Texas on the other hand was ‘a top 5 team’ that just happened to be #6 because there were 6 ‘top 5 teams’. They obviously lost a LOT of respect for that close call.

As a comparison point, Cal is still #8 behind both Wisconsin and Texas in the USA Today coaches poll… which tends to lag the AP poll because coaches have a lot less time to watch the out of town scoreboard on Saturdays than reporters do.

I didn’t realize this until I started watching the TV coverage but DeSean had a taped thumb from an injury (dislocation?). I hadn’t seen any discussion of it here on the blog (although I have on other sites) and it wasn’t obvious for those of us watching the game in the stadium. Was there any mention of it in the pre-game articles and discussions? While I think both Jason’s and my (in podcast) criticism are still valid, I think this is a significant qualifier. A lot of guys don’t react well to an injury and let it affect their decisions too much… or not enough. Perhaps this might explain part of the reason DeSean’s instincts and decisions seemed to be a little off and definitely explains why he had a little fumble-itis.

I arrived at yesterday’s game earlier than expected. At first we headed over to the FunZone, which was anything but fun for my two boys, 4 and 2 1/2. The bounce house, the lone attraction for young kids, was monopolized by the Boys and Girls Club who was, in addition to being made up of much older kids than my boys, were also very unruly. The leaders were letting them run wild and be WAY too aggressive in the bounce house. When the Cal students supervising the bounce house had to stop everything to pull out a kid who somehow managed to get a concussion (he looked like he was about to pass out drunk), we decided it wasn’t safe for my young boys. Very disappointing. I thought part of the point of the boys and girls club was to teach these children discipline and integrity?

In any case, we ended up going into the stadium over an hour before the game, which is bad form with young children. They need to be able to run around as much as possible before being asked to sit in the same spot for 3 1/2 hours with only a couple of short breaks (as an aside, how unfortunate is it that halftime, the best chance for a break, is also the most entertaining part for a toddler because of the band performances?). So to do my best to keep them active, I had them run up and down the steps. When we were at the top, I asked them if they wanted to see over the side and of course they wanted to. I picked them up and looked over the side. What did I see? Well, I saw a perfect spot to heckle the tree-sitters. I mean they couldn’t have been 50 feet away in plain view (because these are the tree houses that are actually at the top of the pines). I didn’t say anything to them but I could have held a conversation with them had I wanted to.

Back at my seat, my uncle and brother and I tried to come up with the best heckles we could if we wanted to go back up there. Here’s a sampling:

• (Chainsaw sound… preferably amplified)
• TIMBER! (my favorite)
• Cut ’em down!
• Hey look, I didn’t know there was a zoo out here!?!
• Look, tree monkeys! Ooooo, Ooooo, Ooooo… wanna banana?

I don’t really recommend heckling them, it’s not at all productive to our cause, but if you want to get a very good view of them up in the trees, the top of section E is the best place.

My comments on the Louisiana Tech. game can be found on the podcast page.

Most posts with my thoughts on the game to follow. A quick one though: I knew there was going to be some bozo who’d answer “Bad as the Furd” to this week’s poll question. I suspect it was either a tree-sitter sympathizer (Oooo… you really got us with that one!) or my brother trying to get under my skin (see comment to tree-sitter).

Standard Podcast [ 8:58 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

It’s telling, just how far Cal has come in the last six seasons, that a 30-point win at home doesn’t leave me walking on sunshine. Oh, I can see the sunshine from here, and I may go walk on it a little bit later. But enough things happened in this game that made it feel… incomplete.

• DeSean, get your head in the game. Today DeSean Jackson played like a guy who wanted to pad his Heisman highlight reel (or singlehandedly win the game), and instead he got exposed. He fielded several punts he shouldn’t have, and I have to guess that the coaching staff wasn’t thrilled about it, since he wasn’t out there to field the last La. Tech punt. He also dropped two balls, both of which were probably touchdowns. One of them was a bit tough — the pass was low and he was looking back at the sun — but he still probably should have caught it, and would have if he hadn’t been thinking about turning upfield and running for an ESPN highlight.

• Penalties’ll kill you. Lots of yellow flags today, including way too many false starts and a dumb (is there any other kind?) unsportsmanlike conduct foul. When you end up winning by 30, I suppose it doesn’t matter. But in a close game, those kind of penalties will kill you, and if you’re jumping like that at home, imagine what might happen on the road.

• Longshore’s inconsistency. Look, compared to Joe Ayoob, Nate Longshore is the second coming of Joe Montana. But while Longshore is a more accurate a passer than his predecessor, he has bouts of inconsistency where he struggles with his accuracy. During much of this game, Longshore’s passes were off, sometimes by a little, sometimes by a lot. I guess what I’m saying is, when he’s good Longshore looks like a prototypical Tedford quarterback: efficient, if a little robotic. But sometimes, for long stretches, he struggles to complete a pass. Let’s hope he steps up now that Cal’s headed into the Pac-10 schedule, because one of those cold streaks could lose a game down the line.

• Pac-10 officials? Avert your eyes. Several terrible calls from the officials, most stunningly the obvious fumble that was called a fumble on the field, overruled by another official who decided it was an incomplete pass, and then upheld as an incompletion after a review. Guys, the guy took multiple steps and lowered his head while running with the ball. It could not have been incomplete. And yet after looking at the tape, the replay officialy decided he couldn’t overturn the call. Gritting my teeth for another year of bad Pac-10 officiating…

Anyway, on the brighter side. Cal’s defense played much better, giving up yardage repeatedly on one over-the-middle pass but generally doing its bend-but-don’t-break thing with excellent results. Special teams, led by LaVelle Hawkins’s opening touchdown return, also generally did well. What a bad day for the Louisiana Tech kicker — he had a field goal try blocked, missed an extra point, and had a kickoff returned for a TD. At least the Bulldogs went for two after their second touchdown, sparing him yet another indignity.

Now let’s talk running backs. Despite the legend of Jeff Tedford, the wise trainer of efficient quarterbacks, I am getting the feeling that this year’s Cal’s team is best on the ground. Justin Forsett churned up 152 yards and three touchdowns, showing power and speed that remind me of J.J. Arrington in his prime.

And every time Jahvid Best touches the ball, it’s electrifying. He had a great kickoff return, as well as a mind-blowing end around. On the end around, there were at least two Tech players in good position to stop him. It’s the sort of play you see a lot, where enough defenders are in the area to blow the play open. Except, with Best, you just know that there’s no way those guys are going to get to him. And they didn’t. Jahvid The Jet turned on his afterburners and blew right past them. What an exciting player. As electrifying as DeSean Jackson can be when he’s not preening for his Heisman close-up, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Jahvid Best is already threatening to supplant DeSean as the team’s most exciting player.

So in the end, while the pass offense’s sputtering made me a bit more nervous about this game than I should probably be, it’s still a 30-point win at home on a glorious late-summer day in Berkeley. I’ll take it.

Short Takes: See the rest of my game photos here… Cal public address announcer Dick Callahan, or as we prefer to call him, “AnnouncerBot 2.0 beta,” was nowhere to be heard today. Did his software crash? (Phil tells me he was subbing for Roy Steele at the Coliseum. Did you misplace your loyalty plug-in, AnnouncerBot 2.0 beta?)… Speaking of the public-address system, it was much less obnoxious today than in game one. Still not great, but not quite as bush-league a feeling as I got two weeks ago… Brought my kids to the game for their annual Berkeley trek, and let me tell you, the magic age appears to be 6. My daughter’s almost 6 and she was really enjoyable at the game today, which she hasn’t really been since she was very little. Of course the three-year-old was a handful, but whatcha gonna do?… Driving home listening to KGO, I was amused to hear Lee Grosscup on the post-post-game show, not because of anything Lee said but because after the Tennessee game the Cupper mysteriously disappeared and was replaced by a KGO broadcaster rambling about water rights in the Central Valley…. The crowd didn’t know whether to cheer or boo when it was announced that USC was losing (early) to Nebraska. I cheered, because my dislike of USC overrides even my pro-Pac-10 urges… Speaking of which, UCLA got spanked by Utah. Shows you how ridiculous pre-season rankings are. Did any of you really think the baby bears were good? As long as Dorrell is there, they’ll always be badly coached underperformers. Long may Karl reign over Bruins Nation… Stanford finally wins a game at the new Stanford Stadium! Even though Chelsea won there first… Cal really needs to schedule a series against Texas. When Texas was trailing in its eventual narrow victory over Central Florida(!), the score was announced to loud cheers. Yes, Mack Brown, we Cal fans will remember you and your big mouth until the day we play in Pasadena on New Year’s Day… And bringing up the rear is: Notre Dame! Insert your own punch line here.

Now that the stats section is up and running, I can link to the comparison stats for Cal and Louisiana Tech. Go take a look. Unfortunately, the statistics are misleading because they only include one game: Hawaii. Since their other opponent was a I-AA team, the stats available to me (at least the ones I’m grabbing) aren’t comprehensive enough to be easily usable.

What seems to be impressive about LT is their offense. They’ve put up a ton of points and they’ve done it against a team that is more stingy, at least by the numbers, than Cal’s opponents. Their offense is also balanced, rushing for slightly more yards per game than they pass for. What is not so impressive is their yards per play, across the board. Theyr’e in the middling 4 1/2 yards per play range for all three categories (overall, passing, rushing), which isn’t that good. The final qualifier is their opponents, particularly defensively. Central Arkansas is, well, Central Arkansas, but Hawaii is the more deceptive one. This is a team that is ranked 20th and has been on fire for the last couple years. The caveat is they’ve been doing it by putting up tons of points, not by doing anything meaningful on defense. Theyr’e the classic WAC “win the shootout” team.

So, while it appears that LT may be able to compete offensively, there are also reasons to be suspicious of that conclusion.

Things get worse for LT on defense, although the qualifiers from above are reversed. It’s hard to be too concerned about a defense that yields 45 points to anyone, but we have to remember that Hawaii routinely posts 45 on their opponents. Hawaii put up 63 on Northern Colorado. So just how bad is the LT defense? One really doesn’t know. They held Central Arkansas to 7 points and gave up 45 to Hawaii. How does one quantify the implications of that?

I think the answer is that we don’t. We’re left with guesses and qualitative analysis.

Overall, I think the LT offense is potent enough to ensure the final score doesn’t look like a huge blowout unless the Cal offense puts up ridiculously big numbers. While I think this game will be an easy one for Cal, it’ll also look closer on the scoreboard than it should, particularly because of Tedford’s conservative play calling in low-risk games. Expect to see a game similar to Colorado State, minus the end of game secondary breakdowns and the slow start. Also expect to see Tedford take his foot off the accelerator in the mid-3rd quarter once the game is locked up.

Cal 35, LT 17

If anyone needs an example of why it is so hard to come to concensus, they need only look at this week’s poll. Three answers were essentially equally popular. Unfortunately, the one that edges out the other two vote-wise is also the hardest to pull off because it requires the vast majority of the fans in the stadium be aware of “the plan”. So, I’m going to recommend that we all bring our rubber chickens (the Barry Bonds fans amongst us should already have them) and I’ll find out how to get a message to the Mic-Men encouraging the “De-Sean” chant like “Go-Bears” (student side of stadium yells “De”, alumni side yells “Sean”). Since both of those things can be done together, there is no reason not to do both.

I bit the bullet this week and spent the time to add some intro audio to the podcast (feedback is welcome) since I was already so late as to be nearly worthless. In any case, it’s posted for your viewing pleasure on the podcast tab.

Standard Podcast [ 6:59 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

OK, I know I promised it on the 10th, but I didn’t take into account my vacation over the weekend. Nevertheless, the stats section is now up and running and allows for comparing any of the Pac-10 teams and their opponents. Louisiana Tech is looking pretty strong just based on their numbers…