(Written by kencraw)

10 years ago today my wife and I were married, starting on what has been a surprise filled journey more wonderful than anything I could have planned for those years. It’s difficult to put into a few sentences what has been so wonderful about my marriage but to say she somehow manages to both make me a better person on a daily basis while simultaneously bringing great joy to me constantly. She is both the mother of my children, an awesome one at that, and a dedicated, loving, caring, funny and alluring wife.

So today I say thank you to my wife of 10 years. I love you honey!

Here’s to 50 more years…

(Written by kencraw)

This being an odd-year, the Big Game is at Stanford. As we all know, the new Stanford Stadium doesn’t have room for all Cal Season Ticket holders, so you’ve got to be on the ball to get tickets to the game. Today at 8:30 AM the tickets went on sale for non-donor season ticket holders (aka, cheap people like me).

I got my order through at 8:31 AM. 🙂

If you’re a season ticket-holder, RUN, don’t walk, over to calbears.com and get your tickets NOW. They may be gone by lunchtime.

If you’re still here reading this, you either got your tickets already or you’re not planning on going to the game (or you’re back after running)…

So it’s time for my 2nd annual Big Game ticket allocation rant:

The athletic office limits Big Game ticket sales based on accounts. Big donors, no matter how many season tickets they have, can order 6 Big Game tickets. Non-Donor season ticket-holders and regular donor non-season ticket holders, no matter how many season tickets they have, can order 4 Big Game tickets. And low-level donors without season ticket holders can order 2.

I get that Donors get special privileges and I don’t have one iota of a problem about them getting priority and being able to buy tickets that others can’t. I understand that even if they’re not season-ticket holders. That’s not my complaint. Donors deserve special privileges.

My complaint is that if holding season tickets is a criteria for whether you can get Big Game tickets, which I’m glad it is, how many tickets you hold should be part of a criteria of how many tickets you can purchase.

I have 6 season tickets in one account. I can only buy 4 tickets. So somebody in my family is going to get the shaft this November (3 kids right now, so I only need 5 tickets, the 6th is for family growth and we don’t mind the extra room in the stadium). I’m OK with that if everyone else had the same problem. But guess what? There’s a group who sits right next to us in the stadium that has 3 tickets, but since they’re all just buddies, they’ve got the tickets in 3 different accounts so they’re billed separately. So, those 3 guys with 3 tickets can buy TWELVE Big Game tickets between them.

That just doesn’t make any sense. Is what the ticket office wants is for me to split my 6 ticket account into 3 accounts so I can get more tickets for the Big Game? Seems like a logistical nightmare waiting to happen with a bunch of special requests to make sure those tickets are seated together for the regular season-tickets (a request the ticket-office fulfills for those 3 buddies).

Here’s my recommendation on how the ticket office should run things:

They should allocate tickets separately based on donations and based on the number of season tickets one has. Something like this:

Big Donors get 6 tickets
Regular Donors get 4 tickets
Small Donors get 2 tickets
Season ticket-holders get 1 ticket for every 2 they have.

So, if I’m a season ticket holder with 6 tickets, I’ll get three from that and if I want 6 tickets, I need to be a “regular donor” to be allocated an additional 4. (I’m purposely avoiding the dollar figures since it’s not that important, logically speaking.) If I only need 5, I could be a “small donor”.

I set it up this way because I wanted to allow for allocating a smaller number than one has season tickets for, because that although tough to swallow it would be fair, but I think in principle it should be 1 ticket for every 1 season ticket you have.

And remember, none of this affects the order in which one has priority. I’m still OK that Big Donors get first priority and then there’s a priority scale from there, so that if the Big Game tickets sell out before the non-donor season-ticket holders get a chance to purchase, that’s just the way the cookie crumbles.

But it’s just not fair that I get the shaft with my 6 tickets when someone with 3 can get 12 when neither of us has made any donations to the University. Doing things “per account” is just stupid.

(Written by kencraw)

Over at Calbears.com, they announced that 3 more games have been picked up for TV coverage. (Hat tip to commentor AERose for alerting me to the Minnesota game getting picked up prompting me to go search for a press-release on the subject.)

The new additions after ABC/ESPN picked up USC, Oregon and Maryland via their Pac-10 contract and FSN/Versus picked up no games via their Pac-10 contract, are:

• CSN Calfornia picked up the Eastern Washington game as everyone expected. CSN California is our “fall back” option and they’re small enough of a network that any game they get causes a big up-tick in viewership.
• ESPN (or ESPN2) picked up the Minnesota game via their Big-10 contracts or associated options (I don’t know their contractual situation at all).
• CSN California got the rights to the Washington game from FSN Northwest who had already picked up that game for local coverage. This will ensure that the game is shown locally to those who don’t have the full FSN sports package.

That gets us to half the games on TV with the rest being up for 12-day selections:

For the observant viewer, they noticed that there was no “or ?” on the UCLA game. That’s because there are two contracts available and only two games to pick from, Cal at UCLA and Stanford at Arizona. So both games will get picked up, it’s just a question of who will be on ABC at 12:30 PM and who will be on Versus at 4:30 PM.

The Big Game also seems like a likely pickup as there are 3 television slots available and only 4 games to pick from. Particularly when one of them is Oregon State at WSU, which would only get picked up if for some reason OSU is on fire again this season, something I don’t expect, it seems safe to say that the Big Game will be picked up by one of these contracts.

The other 4 games are battling it out for 1 to 3, 12-day selections with always two or more games getting left out in the cold by the Pac-10 contracts (exception: 10/31 where there’s 1, 12-day and 2 games to choose from). The good news these days is that CSN California appears to be in Cal’s hip-pocket for any game that doesn’t get picked up for one of the more lucrative contracts. That’s where that “or ?” is not something to be worried about. We know exactly who’s going to do it and are pretty confident they’ll want it.

Overall that means things are looking good for a another season with every game on TV.

(Written by kencraw)

I’m a bit surprised by this, but FSN/Versus got their first stab at picking Pac-10 games for 2009 and chose to only make 7 of their 18 possible selections, leaving 11 more as “12 or 6-day selections”. That’s a bit higher than usual. I don’t know the exact numbers but I would have expected 10-12 games to be selected leaving just over a handful for the 12 day selections. The Bears got none of those picks 7 picks although I suspect they’ll get more than a couple of the 12 day selections.

As of right now, there’s only one game that couldn’t be on either FSN, ESPN or ABC, the Eastern Washington game. There’s no 12 day selections for that week and lets be honest, even if there was it wouldn’t be picked up by FSN. Look for the athletic office to be getting that game on Comcast Sports California (not Bay Area). FSN effectively did us a favor for not leaving a 12 day selection for that day because negotiations for CSN California to pick it up would have to wait for the 12 day pick before the ink could be signed.

The other game that’s a bit of a question mark is the Minnesota game. It won’t be on ABC or ESPN, but may be on the Big-10 network. It’s yet to be seen whether FSN or Comcast sports could buy the rights to that feed or perhaps whether they could go out and get dueling coverage. Whatever would happen, it wouldn’t fall under the Pac-10 contract because that’s only for Pac-10 home games. My gut says this game will be on TV somehow.

All the rest of the games are either picked up or candidates for FSN, ESPN or ABC to pick up as 12 day selections. I suspect that the athletic department will also be lining up CSN California to pick up any games that fall through the 12 day selections.

Here is where you can see the full TV schedule as it stands.

(Written by kencraw)

UPDATE on June 25th: This post has been getting a lot of attention lately so I talked with the Athletic Office today to see what the probability of moving the students is. The answer I got from Herb Beneson was that this is not a discussion point and while not every decision has been made, there’s been no indication that the students will be moved. Herb also pointed to the Haas Pavilion where the Basketball team plays. When they moved there from Harmon Gym, the students still got mid-court seats on one side. So looks like the Athletic Office views things very similarly to use regular folks. I’m going to be working with Herb to get an interview with one of the people in the know to get more details on how the seating will be arranged after the renovation, with the caveat that things are still in flux, so look for additional blog posts on the subject in the coming weeks.

bar20 made the comment down in my new stadium seating analysis that I was completely overlooking the idea that the student seats may be moved from the 50 yard line premier seats to make room for displaced donors and longtime season ticket holders.

It’s true, I did.

But I guess that’s because I don’t want to even consider the possibility. Every stadium I’ve been to where they displace the students into the endzone has felt wrong to me. It might as well be a pro-stadium, potentially an old one, but a stadium where there’s no more ownership of the team than owning season tickets.

In my opinion, students deserve good seats. It’s their school afterall. Not to be too harsh, but every alumni who wants to push them out in my opinion is taking an “I got mine” attitude, because when they were students, they got the best seats. Now, instead of handing down that tradition and benefit they received they want to be the group that gets the best of both worlds, the best seats in college and those same seats as donors.

Yes, yes, I know that’s what all the other programs are doing. I’ve never accepted that as a reasonable answer. You do something because it is the right thing, not because it is what the herd is doing.

But maybe I’m off base. Answer my new survey on the sidebar and add you comments: Are you willing to accept worse seating so that the students don’t have to be displaced?

(Written by kencraw)

(We continue our look at The Half Season Of Which We Shall Not Speak (THSOFWWSNS) with the UCLA game. Go here for past posts.)

The pre-game Storyline:
It was the worst of times in Berkeley. The Bears shot at their first #1 ranking in over fifty years was lost to a boneheaded move by an inexperienced backup quarterback (and how much one blames him for that depends on their inherent charity to inexperience). Now the Bears had fallen to #12. Would Longshore, our knight in shining armor, be able to play versus UCLA? If so, the game would be in the bag. If not, perhaps a week of experience should be enough for Riley to win the day.

The pre-game Reality:
While Longshore was healthy enough to play, the Oregon State game had exposed more weaknesses of the Bears than most people realized. UCLA was poised to make the most of those weaknesses. At a minimum, everyone now knew that Longshore’s injury was serious enough to have him sitting out 3 weeks, a long time for a sprain and probably wouldn’t be 100% in the LA.

The key plays:

• Longshore limps through first 3rd down and is unable to complete pass.
• UCLA’s QB, Cowan, overthrows on his first 3rd down to give Cal ball back.
• Cal gets a generous pass interference call on 3rd down to extend 2nd drive.
• Longshore slightly underthrows DeSean Jackson for a catch that could have been long one but instead was tackled right away.
• Longshore makes a nice read and completes a pass to Craig Stevens over the middle for a touchdown. Bears up: 7-0
• UCLA completes a bunch of 3rd downs in a row including a 3rd and 13 on their second drive.
• Follett chases down Cowan from behind to force field-goal attempt, which is good. Bears lead slimed to 7-3.
• Kalil Bell has a 64 yard run that was WAY too easy, setting up 1st and goal which is quickly converted into a TD. Bears in their first hole: 7-10.
• Bears return kickoff to mid-field.
• Double play-action springs DeSean free for easy TD. Bears back on top: 14-10.
• Chris Conte is burned for 38 yard pass play on ensuing drive.
• Bears stiffen in redzone, keeping UCLA to a field-goal. Bears lead slimmed again: 14-13.
• Jahvid Best fumbles just outside UCLA redzone, losing a scoring opportunity and giving UCLA ball back with over 2 minutes left in the half.
• Worrell Williams strips ball from UCLA with a HUGE grab, throwing the ball 20 yards down the field. Cal recovers in UCLA territory with just over a minute left in half.
• Jordan Kay misses 44 yard field-goal wide left to end half.
• Wide-reciever pass by UCLA completely fools Cal secondary for their easy touchdown. Bears back in a hole: 14-20.
• Hawkins gets wrong call on “shared” catch where both he and defender have hands on ball. Defender eventually rips it away and it is called an interception. Correct call is a complete pass (remember MSU call in ’08?). Would have given Cal the ball in the UCLA redzone.
• Forsett gets first sizeable gain of game, but it’s a screen pass. Running game stinks, only 29 yards midway through 3rd quarter..
• Fade pattern to DeSean in endzone goes for touchdown. Bears back on top: 21-20
• Cal gives up 50 yard runback on ensuing kickoff. Defense bails them out and forces punt.
• Bears go to running game on 2 consecutive possessions going 3 and out both times. 2nd time Larson only gets off a 32 yard punt giving UCLA ball at midfield again.
• UCLA executes both a screen and a reverse that work against a now tired Bear defense, getting the ball into the redzone.
• UCLA field-goal is good putting Bears back in a hole with under 5 minutes left: 21-23
• Best runs kickoff down to UCLA 35 yard-line breathing life into Bears.
• Longshore makes one of few bad reads of game for each pick-6, effectively ending the game: 21-30.
• Longshore throws weak desperation interception to seal the deal of what was already mostly for sure.

The forgotten

• Longshore hadn’t thrown an interception all game, minus the bogus shared reception that was called wrong, and most of his throws were pretty darned good. People loved to place blame on Longshore for this game but his play was pretty darned good until the big mistakes at the end.
• I had forgotten that the starter for this game was still a game-time decision. This time Tedford went with Longshore over Riley, which by my estimation was the right decision.
• There were a TON of penalties in this game. I think Cal ended up with 9 and UCLA had a similar number. Lots of them were pass-interference in a very physical game, but there was lots of sloppy play all around.
• Also, the turnover count was high as well. Between both teams fumbling and the interception count rising late in the game, this was one VERY sloppy game.
• Overall it was the sloppiness by both teams that was surprising. Long runbacks, overly-easy completions, biting on play-action, penalties, turnovers, you name it, if there was something sloppy to be done, both teams did it and continually let the opposition back into the game.
• Cal’s Bend But Don’t Break defense did not have the best day. Not only did it “breaK” a few times to many, there were far too many possessions where UCLA kept marching down the field despite it feeling like the Cal defense was getting the better of them.
• Repeating my plea from the previous game, I hate it when the Bears are up by 1 at halftime. Two games in a row!

The post-game storyline:
What was at first a disaster the previous week was now an all-out tragedy. In two weeks the Bears had gone from being the assumptive #1 team to being out of the hunt for the Rose Bowl. But it was just too flukes in a row and there was no reason to believe the Bears couldn’t get back on track and make it to the Holiday Bowl or if a couple teams slipped up, get back in the Rose Bowl hunt.

The post-game reality:
The Bears were showing their weaknesses far more thoroughly than most were willing to admit. With both ASU and USC in the next three weeks, the Bears had a lot to overcome if they were going to get back on track, particularly now that both teams had two games of blue-prints on how to beat these Bears.

The 2007 learnings:

• This was really the first game that showed the weaknesses of the BBDB defense. In previous games it hadn’t left the door open as thoroughly as it did versus UCLA.
• Jordan Kay was starting to fall apart and he could no longer be counted on as a sure thing, particularly over 35 yards.
• Another learning was the turnovers. The turnovers really hurt the Bears on this day and there was no reason to see the dropped balls in this game were just a fluke.

The conclusion
This was the first game where the Longshore “haters” really started coming out of the woodwork. I for one, don’t get why this game was the game that set them loose. Sure he make the disaster throw that lost the Bears the game, but SOOOO much had gone wrong throughout the whole game that was in no way Longshore’s fault that blaming this loss on him seems foolish. What was most apparent to me was that the team had lost it’s “edge”. They just weren’t the dominating team that made the trip to Eugene and did what very few people thought they could do no matter how good they were.

That said, there was a LOT more edge to loose.

(Written by kencraw)

OK, before I get too deep into this, I’d better start with a disclaimer: I suspect there was many a year when Stanford was getting the shaft in this agreement. That said…

I read this article about revenue sharing for the Big Game and it really bugged me.

Turns out Cal and Stanford equally share the revenue from every Big Game, both home and away.

It’s not even the smaller stadium part that bugs me, it’s the number of fans. So in 2005, when there were 50k Cal fans and 35k Standford fans in the old Stanford stadium, Stanford got half the money!?! And the next year when there were 55k Cal fans and 15k Stanford fans in Memorial Stadium, Stanford STILL got half!?!

It’s one thing when a stadium doesn’t hold many people and that’s the limitation on how much revenue one can bring in, at least then the school that is benefitting is living under their own limitations the rest of the season. But it’s something else entirely when one school brings at least two-thirds of the fans every year and only gets half the money. Heck, if anything, I think the arrangement is more fair with the smaller Stanford stadium when they’re at least bringing 35k to Cal’s 15k when the game is in Palo Alto.

In any case… no big deal, just thought it was worth a quick rant.

(Written by kencraw)

My previous post about the donor program going well has had me re-hashing thoughts about how the seating will work out after the stadium renovation and I thought I’d share some of those thoughts. But first a disclaimer:

I have ZERO insider information to justify my thoughts. It’s just based on my deductive reasoning and my general sense of fairness.

Let’s start out with an problem statement:

Currently there are about 72,000 seats in Memorial stadium. When the renovation is finished there will be about 63,000 seats (current estimates). There are only about 45,000 season ticket holders, but those season ticket holders generally hold the best seats in the stadium. Those best seats on the west side will now be spread out. As such, fewer people will be able to sit close to the 50 yard line on the west side. Thus the fundamental question is: who will be displaced and to where?

Here’s the base analysis of how many people will be displaced:

(By the way, I might be helpful to open up a seating chart for Memorial stadium at this point.)

There’s 48 sections in Memorial stadium and for the most part they are similar in size. 72k/48 = 1500 seats per section. Currently the donor seating on the west side compromises 8 sections (EE to I) for a total of 12,000 seats. Based on news reports, it appears that capacity will be reduced to 8,000 seats. There will be 3000 premier seats and then 5000 “regular” donor seats. My assumption is that the “regular” donor seats will extend as far as they have in the past, EE to I.

Of course, that’s only a 4k reduction, so we need to come up with 5k additional seats that are converted from bleachers to seats. Assuming the same ratio of 2 seats take the space of 3 bleacher seats that the donor section has, that means 10 additional sections must be converted. I’m going to make a stab and say the following sections will be converted: T, TT, CC through E and II through K. There’s other options here, mostly putting either more or less seating (could there be none?) on the east side, however I’m going to stick with my setup because it’s exclusively on the west side minus where there is donor seating on the east side.

So where are season ticket holders currently sitting?

Basically, current ticket holders take up all but 18 sections. To simplify matters, I’m going to assume all sections are filled before they move to the next, which is obviously not true. Nevertheless I think it is a simplification that doesn’t leave too much unaccounted for. Those single-game seated sections would be C through D (3 sections), JJ thorugh KK (3 sections), MM through PP (includes visitor section for 7 total) and UU through WW).

So, somewhere between 6 and 9 of those sections, depending on whether the new sections have seats or benches are going to be filled by people displaced from the west side (and the two donor sections on the east side). CC, D, JJ and K, all of the remaining non-donor seats get 4,000 displaced season ticket holders. V, UU, and PP, being bleachers would basically round it out with 4500 additional displaced season ticket holders (we’re 500 short, but my math is rough enough here to make that count).

So that’s the practical matters of how much we’re going to get spread out, or at least my best guess at it anyway. The big question remains: who gets moved where?

Here’s my best guess:

If you’re sitting in a donor section and are willing to either keep or start ponying up the donor fees for your seat then I think you’ll be able to sit close to where you always have (see gotcha #1 below for the limitations of that). I suspect 1/3rd of those sitting there are former-donors or long time season ticket holders who aren’t going to be willing to pony up in the future, so those of you who do will be in good shape overall and won’t get signficantly displaced. The big question mark is sections DD, E, II, J and U, the non-donor sections.

There are two big “gotchas” for those sections:

1. Because they’re going to be seats in these sections, the seat numbers and rows are going to be different. You physically CAN’T sit in the same seats as before. Row 33 won’t be where row 33 is today, nor will seats 4-8 in row 33. So the likely demand of “I want the same seats I had before!” just doesn’t make logical sense.
2. If you’re thinking “well it might not be the exact same rows and seats, but I can ask for the same area” gotcha #2 is for you: We’ll have been sitting somewhere else for a season or two. We’ll have been at the Oakland Coliseum or Candlestick or something. It’s a lot harder in 2013 to want your old seats back when the last time you sat there was 2010.

So the result on the west side (I’m going to ignore the displaced east side people at this point) is that 4,000 former donors and 6,000 non-donors get to divy up 8,000 seats on the west side and 2,000 of the get displaced to the east side. Perhaps there will be less displaced from the west side against their will if the Blue and Gold zone’s are expanded up to KK and C so that they included all the bleachers and that entices some people to take the cheap seats now that they’ve been displaced from their formerly choice seats.

And what about priority? It’s significant difference sitting in CC from E (or the similar story on the southwest side). It’s anybody’s guess but my gut feeling tells me that length of holding season tickets as well as squeeky wheels will be all that matters. I can’t imagine any other way of doing it. Why would former donors who are new get priority over long-time ticket holders? Why would people who’ve been sitting in E for years get priority over people who’ve had tickets for 30 years but are getting displaced particularly when the specific seats don’t exist anymore? What else is there to go by? I just can’t see any other “fair” metric between non-donors besides how long one has been a season ticket holder.

Other thoughts?

(Written by kencraw)

I don’t know about the rest of you, but my biggest concern when I heard about the plan to pay for the Memorial Stadium retrofit, the plan to charge a fortune for luxury boxes and other prime seats to the tune of $50K-$225K per seat over 50 years, my biggest worry was where they were going to find the people who would pay it.

I thought it was a great plan, but they were already having trouble getting people to pay the Bear Backer fees for the seats they had. Heck, I know I’m sitting in seats outside the Bear Backer section because I’m not willing to pony up the big bucks. My 6 seats cost more than I’m comfortable with already.

Additionally, while I know this is harder for people like Jason my co-blogger to hear (because he has those prime seats), I’m OK with the idea that we’re going to kick some former donors or long time season ticket holders out of their prime seats to make room for new donors (or extended donors). At this point, those people will get about 10 seasons of exceptional seats for a program that is good enough to justify doing what other good programs around the country have been doing for a long time. They’ll still get pretty good seats as long-time season ticket holders in the non-donor section when everyone gets shuffled around. I think a 10-year thank you for their loyalty through the thin times is sufficient even thought I don’t begrudge them being disappointed for wanting it to last indefinitely.

The point of that longer-than-intended explination is that I was perfectly happy with plan and its consequences, but I was unsure whether it would work. Were they really going to find 3000 people who had a couple hundred thousand (two seats) to give over the next 30 years?

Well, good news!:

Since Cal began the seat endowment program in January, 40 percent of the 3,000 available seats have been claimed, with about 10 percent paying up front and the rest making 30-year commitments. So far, the university has raised more than $164 million, Rosselli said.

I’d say that’s pretty good progress on the program. Considering that the renovation is going to cost $250 million or so (estimates vary), we’re about half way there! Now admittedly, they’ve only got about $40-$50 million of that in the bank with the rest coming over 30 years, but still, great progress!

Good news all the way around

(As an aside, if you click on the link for the article, do your best to ignore the derisive tone of both the article and the ill-informed commentors. We know what’s going on and whether or not we agree with the mechanism used for raising the money, we know it needs to be raised. Seeing that this mechanism is working suggests the University did the right thing.)

(Written by kencraw)

Over at CGB, the’re discussing the 10 best moments from 2008. In the process of discussing #3 the idea of the Bend But Don’t Break defense came up and HydroTech objects to the term:

I’m pretty sure Gregory hates it when Cal fans use the whole “bend but don’t break” line to describe the defense. I remember some interview of him where he thought that phrase was inaccurate. In a sense, that line is inaccurate to describe our defense because that line implies that other defenses aren’t “bend but don’t break,” however every defense is a “bend but don’t break” defense in that every defense would much rather give up yards and a field goal rather than a touchdown.

Defenses are all the same. They share the ultimate goal: stop the offense.

What differs in defenses is how they accomplish that goal. Some prefer to be very aggressive. Others prefer to be less aggressive. Cal fans tend to associate “bend but don’t break” with less aggressive defensive play, but to only associate that line with less aggressive defense is to ignore the fact that more aggressive defenses are also “bend but don’t break.” Whether a defense is more aggressive or less aggressive, they both want to minimize the amount of yards the offense gains. They do that via different methods. A more aggressive defense will blitz more often hoping to get sacks, and putting the majority of the defensive duties on their secondary to lock down the WRs to prevent completions. A less aggressive defense will drop more men into coverage hoping to get more incompletions and interceptions while putting the majority of the defensive duties on their defensive line to get a good pass rush on their own. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. As of lately, due to the 2007 collapse, many Cal fans have become adverse to less aggressive defense, and have begun to inappropriately use the phrase “bend but don’t break.”

(I couldn’t decide how much of his description to give you and in the end decided to give you the entire thing.)

Sorry Hydro, I think you’re awesome and I love your commentary, but this particular one is ripe for a take down!

My first complaint is that Hydro is over-emphasizing a name. While I generally agree with him that accurate names are preferable, in the end, we do need to come up with a name for things even if they fail to perfectly describe that thing. So yeah, BBDB may not be the best name for the defensive strategy at issue here but we do need a name for each defensive strategy. And just about all defensive strategies use names that are true for all defenses. “Prevent” defenses don’t have a monopoly on trying to prevent touchdowns. “Contain” defenses don’t have a monopoly on containing the opposition. “Pressure” defenses don’t have a monopoly on applying pressure. “Zone” defenses don’t have a monopoly on using zone converages. I could go on and on. The names point out the areas of emphasis, not exclusivity. Just because other defenses attempt to “Bend But Don’t Break” doesn’t mean that it can’t be used to describe a particular strategy.

Which brings me to my second point, there’s no doubt that in 2007 the Bears used a specific defensive strategy that was different from the earlier Gregory defenses and most definitely different from the 2008 3-4 defense. Hydro makes it seem, perhaps unintentionally, that all defenses are the same and we should shy away from naming them. Hogwash! The 2007 defense emphasized more than any defense during the Tedford era keeping the defense behind the play. It rarely put the individual secondary positions “on an island” to go man-on-man against the receivers. It’s reasonable to ask that this defensive strategy be given a name.

Fundamentally, there are different strategies. One could call the highly aggressive defense the “Pressure But Don’t Prevent” because they do accept the risk that they’ll completely blow it on one play and give up an 80 yard TD. What they’re counting on is that 9 possessions out of 10 the opposition gives up the ball quickly without gaining many yards. So there’s no aspect of the “prevent” defense in their scheme, instead they focus heavy “pressure” to force the 3 and out. Is it a great name? No, but it is somewhat descriptive.

So if we’ve got the PBDP versus the BBDB, one has to admit, no matter how poorly they’re named, that they are two different defensive strategies AND (and I think this is what really bugs Hydro, is that people don’t realize) they’ve both got their pros and cons.

I mean, let’s phrase BBDB in the positive. They’re going to minimize the number of points our opposition scores on each possession and decrease the number of possessions that the opposition has to score (because all the time each possession takes off the clock). By making them march slowly down the field, keeping everything in front of them, the opposition is going to take a lot of time off the clock getting down the field and when they get close, because the defense hasn’t been killing itself trying to force the quick out, they’ve got lots of energy when the shorter field is to their advantage.

Doesn’t that have at least some benefit? Isn’t Bend But Don’t Break at least a reasonable name for that strategy?

Now, one could make a number of counter-arguments:

• That BBDB is a bad strategy.
• That the Bears didn’t use a BBDB defense in 2007
• That the fans don’t properly understand what BBDB is
• That BBDB is a poor name for the strategy

Fair enough, but none of those things take away from BBDB being a defensive strategy and that’s it’s not the same as all the other defenses. So, unless Hydro or someone else would like to come up with a new name and get the rest of the Cal Blogosphere to adopt the name, I say we stick with BBDB to describe the defensive strategy that most people accuse the 2007 Bears of using with lots of zone coverage and emphasizing keeping everything in front of the secondary.

None of this should prevent Hydro from:

• Criticizing TwistNHook from using BBDB for the 2008 defense
• Criticizing those who symplify the BBDB defense to “playing soft”
• Emphasizing the positives of the BBDB defense
• Reiterating the common goals of all defenses

But let’s just accept BBDB as the short-hand name for this style of defense.

(Written by kencraw)

One of the many “joys” of the off-season is finding statistics that will help predict the success of teams in the fall. There’s all kinds of them: Returning points, returning touchdowns, returning yards, returning catches, returning starters, returning tackles, returning sacks, returning pass breakups, returning interceptions, etc.

The thing all of these stats have in common, besides being about “returning” is that they’re easy to calculate. All you have to do is take the players who have stayed with the team and total their numbers for the stats you’re interested in. Any bozo can spend 10 minutes on YahooSports or ESPN or Rivals to produce these number.

What often gets overlooked is that there are a whole bunch of statistics that one would like to have but are more difficult to compile. How about: returning fullback blocks, returning O-Line pancakes… OR how about returning starts?

Particularly for the offensive line where there aren’t any NCAA tracked stats, it’s difficult to determine statistically how much strength is coming back. Leave it to someone like the Wall Street Journal to take the time to compile returning offensive line starts. Here’s the numbers for the Pac-10:

1. USC 91
2. WSU 82
3. UW 67
4. UA 66
5. ASU 56
6. UCLA 56
7. Cal 53
8. Stan 53
9. OSU 37
10. UO 20

(As an interesting aside, the way this came to me was via Oregon Duck fans who were disconcerted to see that Oregon was so low. When the first article came out they only showed a handful of examples of the better teams and who was statistically strong and who was weak. It wasn’t until yesterday that the WJS released all the data and showed that Oregon was the 3rd worst in D-I football, plus the absolute worst in a BCS conference, ahead of only Ball St. (16) and Memphis (18) overall.)

What these numbers say to me is a few things:

The first is that my concerns about this Cal O-Line are well founded. Starts are not the only metric to judge a line by, but watching them get owned by the D-Line all spring made me a little bit suspicious. True, our D-Line looks great, but it’s bad to see Cal at the bottom of the middle pack in starting experience.

The next is that this might be the year to bet against the Oregon teams. Oregon State lost a LOT last year minus a few skill players on offense. They’re key to success last year was an opportunistic offense with the Rodgers brothers and a very stout defense. Losing 8 defensive starters made me confident they were going to take a step back. Seeing their O-Line is in trouble (who was the Most Valuable Unit in the USC upset) makes me pretty confident that they’ll be a middle of the Pac team. As for Oregon, only 20 combined starts… OUCH! Luckily for them, they’ve got a great system and a lot of reloading talent so I think they’ll still be tough, but this hurt my respect for them a bit.

Of course then there is USC who always seems to have 1 key area of strength to keep them in the mix. Weak offensive year? They put up the nations most stingy defense BY FAR. Weak defensive year and breaking in a QB (this year)? They bring back an O-Line that means they won’t need to throw the ball a lot and when they do, he’ll be well protected. ARG!?! These guys are still way ahead of everyone else as a program.

The final thing is just how much line strength the supposed weaker teams are returning. WSU with 82… WOW! Then with UW and UA both in the mid-60’s one’s got to think that these three teams may be less of a pushover this year than many might be expecting.

In any case, lets hope the talent on Cal’s O-Line will be enough to make up for it’s mediocre level of experience.

(Written by kencraw)

Well, the first set of TV scheduling announcements is out. The first set comes from ABC (which also means ESPN). In a few weeks Fox Sports and Versus will make their picks. Finally, during the season the networks will chose games based on “reserved” times they selected when they made their picks. They make those picks 12 days before the day of the “reservation”.

The big winner is, and it’s no suprise, USC. ABC scheduled 12 games and reserved time slots for 8 other games. Of those 12 games picked, fully half of them are USC games. Of the remaining 6 games, only 2 are conference games. Both of those included Oregon (versus Cal and Oregon State). The final 4 games are non-conference games. Washington (versus LSU), Oregon (versus Utah), Stanford (versus Notre Dame) and Cal (versus Maryland) each got 1.

Cal doesn’t come out bad with 3 games total (Maryland, USC and Oregon) which is 3rd behind USC’s 6 and Oregon’s 4. Washington and Oregon State are the only other teams with more than 1, with 2 each, and Washington State and UCLA were the 2 teams left out in the cold (boy, I wouldn’t want to be on the Bruin Nation website this week if I was an ABC exec).

Speaking of which, I’m somewhat suprised the Cal versus UCLA game didn’t get picked up. It has a history of being a close game in the Rose Bowl and you’d think they’d throw UCLA one bone. Here’s betting that the game gets picked up as ABC’s 12 day selection that they reserved for 10/17 at 12:30 PM. You’ll notice that minus USC games, ABC was very reluctant to pick up games midway through the season and the back end of the schedule is very “reservation” heavy. That says to me that ABC doesn’t have a lot of confidence about which teams will rise to the top and wants to hold out on their picks.

Other games that I wouldn’t be surprised being picked up by ABC for a reserved game are the Arizona State game (reservation is for 10/31 @ 12:30 PM) and perhaps the Big Game (reservation is for 11/21 @ 12:30 PM) although it tends not to attract the big networks because it’s mostly unrecognized outside of the Bay Area. I’d add the Oregon State game but there’s no open reservation for that day.

Of course many of these plus others could be picked up by Fox Sports and Versus who tend to grab games that have the potential to be big ones if the chips fall certain ways. As I said before we’ll see their early picks a little later this spring.

What is somewhat interesting is that the Maryland game will be a 7:00 PM game. Usually that timeslot is the domain of Fox Sports. But I guess ESPN2 is wanting to compete for that slot early in the season anyway. FWIW, that means I’ll be selling all but one of my tickets for the Maryland game because the boys are too young for games that late and somebody has to stay with the kids, so my wife is out too. That means I’ve got 5 tickets to sell. Let me know if you’re interested in buying some of those tickets from me ($60 each). You’ll get the privilege of seeing me in my native environment. I’m FAR less level headed in the stands. If I don’t get any bites here at least some of them will end up on ebay/stubhub/whatever (any suggestions for the best site for this?)

Click here to see the TV announcement on the Cal Bears website.

(Written by kencraw)

(Today we pick back up my “Looking back” series. In theory it is supposed to just be last season, but because I tried to squeeze both 2005 and 2007 into the last off-season, I still have some 2007 posts to finish off before moving on to 2008. Note that you can go here to see the last post in the series (the Oregon game) or go here to see all the posts in the series)

The pre-game Storyline:
It was the best of times in Berkeley. A #2 ranking for the Bears and USC looked less than invincible after a stunning loss to Stanford during the bye-week. With USC having to come to Berkeley the question of the week was whether Bear fans would prefer the Rose Bowl or the National Championship game (count me in the Rose Bowl crowd). Oregon State should just be a minor road-bump as long as Longshore’s ankle was good enough to play.

The pre-game reality:
The reality that nobody knew at the time was that Longshore’s ankle was FAR more injured than anyone on the coaching staff was willing to admit. With what amounted more to a ankle fracture with bone fragments chipped off than the quoted ankle sprain. Also overlooked was the formidible defense that Oregon State brought to Berkeley. They were #1 in the nation in rush defense giving up only 40 or so yards a game.

The key plays:

• Jordan Kay misses 48 yard field goal on first drive of game
• Forsett fumbles on Cal 15 yard line setting up near certain score for OSU
• After noble goal-line stand by Bear defense, OSU converts 4th and Goal (less than a yard). Bears in early 0-7 hole.
• Riley throws nice seam route pass for TD to Hawkins to finish nice Cal drive. Score tied: 7-7
• LSU lost in 3rd overtime to Kentucky setting up Bears to take over #1 spot. Announcement made over PA system and players definitely heard. A distraction perhaps?
• Larson kicks a 74 yard punt w/ roll.
• Riley hit as he throws and sends ball up into air for easy interception. Ball returned from Cal 45 to Cal 17 setting up another easy scoring opportunity for Beavers.
• Cal defense holds OSU to field goal. Down only 7-10.
• Riley scrambles on broken play and finds Jordan along the sideline to setup 1st and goal.
• Riley runs option play for touchdown. Bears on top for first time 14-10.
• Bear defense too relaxed in final seconds and gives up 40 second field-goal drive. Lead is down to 14-13 after giving up more “easy” points.
• OSU converts 3rd and 15 on 1st drive of 2nd half to extend drive. Bend But Don’t Break defense playing too soft.
• Bernard finishes a drive he dominated with power running by scoring on a 1 yard TD run. Bears in a hole again: 14-20
• Forsett robbed of touchdown on a 1st and goal. Knee was never down before he rolled over defender into the endzone. Play not reviewed.
• Bears fail to convert on 4th and goal. All 4 downs less than 2 yards and all four downs ran Forsett into the line.
• Bears keep OSU pinned after failed conversion. Punt only out to OSU 26 yardline setting up another scoring opportunity.
• Forsett finds redemption in 7 yard TD run. Bears back in front: 21-20
• OSU converts another 4th and inches TD run.
• Beavers go for 2-point conversion and succeed to be up by a full touchdown: 21-28
• Best fumbles ensuing kickoff return at Cal 40 yardline. Minus a weak sideline personal foul call, Bear defense holds. However OSU converts fieldgoal. Bears now in 10-point hold with just over 6 minutes left: 21-31
• After 3 and out, Bears force 3 and out on OSU, giving them the ball back with 3:30 left and 3 timeouts still unused.
• Bears get first break of day when 10-15 yard seam pass turns into 65 yard touchdown pass to Hawkins. Bears still in it: 28-31
• Onside kick fails, but 3 timeouts and 3 and out gives Bears the ball back on own 6 yard-line with 1:27 left.
• Riley amazingly avoids what would have been a game ending safety getting out of the grasp of the OSU defender and throwing the ball away.
• Riley completes a 13 yard pass to Hawkins on 4th and 17, who somehow avoids 3 tacklers in route to picking up the 1st down.
• Pass to Jordan down sideline gets Bears in field goal range with 24 seconds left.
• Bears get pass interference call on DeSean getting ball down to 12 yard-line.
• The the play that defined the season occured. Riley tries to run for it with too little time left and no timeouts and the clock expires without the field-goal attempt that would have tied the game.

The forgotten

• What is forgotten about the last play was just how rushed everything had been on that last drive. The Bears had come all the way from their own 6 yard-line with 1:27 left. They had avoided two game ending moments in the possible safety and the 4th and 17. Then to come up with the long play to Jordan, it lulled the Bears into a false sense of confidence despite being so rushed. It doesn’t seem as boneheaded in real-time as it does when repeated over-and-over on ESPN.
• I had forgotten that Longshore was a game-time decision. While Riley had been practicing with the 1st team all week, it was still hoped that Longshore was going to play right up until 15 minutes before game-time. What effect that had on the team’s chemistry is unknown.
• For me, I had forgotten just how well Riley played. In my memory, it took him 3 quarters to get his form going. But really, he had a pretty good 1st half. The 3rd quarter was rough for him, but overall, he more than capably played QB.
• I also forgot just how many good breaks the Beavers got and how many bad breaks the Bears got. Overall the Bear defense stuffed OSU. They got 16 points off of turnovers including one 4th and goal conversion. Really OSU only had two “self made” scoring drives and one of those also required a 4th and goal conversion. Just those two goal-line conversions were enough to turn the game. Add in that the Bears failed on their 4th and goal shot and it was clear who got all the breaks this Saturday. The Bears wouldn’t have lost this game twice.
• It was interesting to see some signature plays of the 2008 OSU team in action in 2007, in particular the fly-sweep which they used a few times. While it wasn’t as effective in 2007, it was clear it was a play they refined for 2008.
• Cal’s Bend But Don’t Break defense was in pretty good form on this day overall, but it was interesting to remember just how different that defense was to the 2008 3-4 attacking defense. It was an entirely different scheme that all too often let the dumpoff passes and underneath stuff work while keeping things in front of the secondary. It seemed to speed up the game and keep the clock running, which was great when the Bears were ahead but was to their detriment when OSU took the lead.
• Not so much a “forgotten” but I hate it when the Bears are up by 1 at halftime. I’d much rather be down by 1. Their seem to be fewer halftime adjustments and corrections when the Bears have a halftime lead than not, and up by 1 is not a lead to “hold on to”.
• Another thing that was interesting to watch was Forsett in action. He definitely had his upside but he was not the raw talent that Best is or Marshawn was. He broke a big run in the 1st quarter but was dragged down from behind setting up the missed Kay field-goal. I guarantee you that either Marshawn or Best would have taken it into the endzone. At the same time, Forsett had a certain nimbleness between the tackles that was his strong point. It wasn’t the power of Marshawn but he had a way of getting through small spaces in the line without getting touched that Best doesn’t have.

The post-game storyline:
Disaster had struck in Berkeley. An opportunity to be #1 in the nation had been lost and all because our backup quarterback was too inexperienced (some who be more uncharitable and call him any number of explitives that in short meant ‘stupid’) to know when to get rid of the ball. Luckily our knight in shining armor, the man who the 2006 season was built around and had taken the Bears undefeated thus far including a huge win in Eugene, Mr. Longshore himself, would surely be back and in fine form for next week’s game against UCLA. With USC already having a conference loss under their belt (to Stanford) Cal fans still felt this team could get back on track en route to a Rose Bowl with USC coming to town.

The post-game reality:
Longshore was still far more injured than anyone was letting on and the Bears had two very difficult games in front of them. UCLA always brings their best game when the Bears visit the Rose Bowl and ASU was in fine form in 2007. While many had their doubts about a completely untested ASU team at this point, they were still a formidible opponent in the desert that loomed after the showdown in Pasadena.

The 2007 learnings:

• It was hard to know exactly what to take from this game. Was Riley any good or not? Was the QB the only problem? While everyone acted as if they had all the answers, in reality, nobody knew exactly what to think.
• One learning that was not yet obvious but would be a constant complaint moving forward was ineffectiveness around the goal-line. This was the first of many goal-line stands where the Bears just couldn’t punch it in. Later in the season the Bears were more likely to kick the field-goal instead, but in either case, it was points left on the board.
• Another learning was the turnovers. The turnovers really hurt the Bears on this night and there was no reason to see the dropped balls in this game were just a fluke.

The conclusion
There is probably no game in the Tedford era that evokes such strong emotions as this game. Everyone had their pet complaint and issue with the game. Of all of the games I’ve gone back to watch there was something much more “normal” about the game than my memory had. Yeah the Bears had some bad break and bad plays and yeah OSU escaped Berkeley with a somewhat undeserved win (the caveat being they played an excellent game and although being out-manned talent-wise, they did everything possible to put themselves in a winning position), but this was not a disaster game. It was unfortunate, but not a disaster.

Those were yet to come.

(Written by kencraw)

Cal released its post-spring depth chart and I can’t help but wonder if it was done while all the eyes were on the NFL draft on purpose… but that could just be my conspiracy theory side talking.

In any case, you can view it here.

Some thoughts:

• I think far too much is being made of the lack of any depth for the QB. Some think that putting “OR” next to each guy is a big deal, but I don’t think so. They’re still in the same order they’ve been in all along and I just view the “OR” as a sign that Tedford is reserving the right to change the order in fall. And why shouldn’t he? None of the three is really separating themselves right now. Perhaps if Riley had finished the spring the way he started it, but he didn’t and he needs to know that he needs to get back what he had at the beginning of spring if he expects to be safe at the starting position.
• The fact that Darian Hagan still got the starting spot over Conte despite the fact that he didn’t play all spring is significant to me. The coaches must have a lot of confidence in Hagan. Conte did a pretty good job during the spring and seems to have improved a bit. Don’t be surprised to see more of him on the field, perhaps in nickle packages, perhaps substituting for a safety because of his progress.
• For the opposite case, Verran Tucker lost his starting spot while being out this spring to Marvin Jones. Jones has come a long way, so it may have been the case that was the real reason for the swap. But I also think it is clear Tucker doesn’t have the confidence of the staff that Hagan does.
• Also note that there are 7 WR’s on this “two-deep” depth chart. Between putting in a slot receiver as a third WR position, Michael Calvin got listed as 3rd on the depth chart for one of the three positions. Besides Tucker, the other player seeing his stock fall is Ross, who didn’t get the slot position which instead went to Lagemann, who was perhaps the spring’s best WR.
• Look at how big this offensive line is. With the exception of Guarnero at center at 275, everone is over 300 for an average of 312.4 (or 321.8 without the center). That’s one big line.
• The biggest surprise to me on the O-Line is that Cheadle drops to 3rd string at right-guard. Everyone else is about what I expected. The one with the biggest upside this spring was Summers-Gavin who is beginning to live up to his promise when he was recruited (and as a redshirt freshman is doing it pretty quick).
• If there’s a weak spot on the roster it is fullback. Brian Holley looked pretty sharp early in spring ball but has looked less impressive as practice wore on. Both Tyndall who seems green despite being a redshirt sophomore and Will Kapp who is small and light to be a fullback at 5-10, 210 don’t quite seem poised to challenge Holley for the spot. Hopefully one of them can step up.

Overall, I think this is one solid and deep depth chart. Generally speaking when I look at each position I look at who is 2nd string and think “tough break for that guy” instead of looking at the first team guy thinking “this is the best they can do?” Between guys like Cattouse who I’m not sure what they have to do to prove their capable to be 1st string to Ross, Payne and Conte who seem to all be in the same boat, this is a pretty deep depth chart.

Other thoughts?

(Written by kencraw)

Well, three Bears were drafted: Mack, Follet and Morrah.

UPDATE on free-agents as of 1:00 PM PDT Monday:

• Rulon Davis signed with Denver.
• Will To’ufo’ou signed with Chicago.
• Anthony Felder signed with San Diego.
• Nick Sundberg signed with Carolina.
• Longshore has been invited to tryout at Miami

Some quick thoughts:

• Mack at #21 overall… that says something about his play and potential at center. He’s getting the reward for all his years of hard preparation and hard play. From what I understand it’s been a full decade since a center went as high as Mack.
• Morrah as one of the last players drafted… what was he thinking by going pro? I think he would have done a lot better in the draft with another year under his belt. He would never have been a 1st rounder, but he could have been a 3rd rounder and there’s an amazingly big difference in your long term prospects (team made bigger investment in you, thereby ensuring they’re not going to dump you for no reason) when you’re a middle rounder than one of the last picks. Morrah was just a 5 minute conversation from going undrafted. I wish the best for him and hope that he recovers from what appears to have been a bad decision. He always struck me as a very nice guy when interviewing him.
• Follett in the 7th round… personally I think the Lions got a good deal on Follett. He’s got both the determination and the raw athletic skill to be a servicable NFL linebacker.
• Personally I think Rulon Davis is the player who most deserved to get drafted but didn’t. I know it’s all about his injury prone history, but it’s also good to hear he was picked up by the Denver Broncos as a free-agent today.
• One of my personal favorite players on the Cal team the last few years was Will To’ufo’ou so I hate to say this, but I think yesterday was proof that college was the end of the road for both him and Worrell Williams. They’re players who played with a lot of heart and were very good college players but just don’t have the tools (Williams lacks speed, To’ufo’ou lacks size) to play at the pro level. I suspect both will get a shot with a free agent contract, but I fear particularly for To’ufo’ou that it won’t last long.
• Finally, Longshore. People keep telling me that he’s going to get picked up as a free-agent but I just don’t see it, and I’m saying this as a guy who was supportive of him when the walls came crumbling down in 2007. He’s just got too many question marks in my mind. But I of course could be wrong.

So, there you have it. There’s also Felder and Sundberg out there who could get picked up by someone.

Overall, what this says to me is that last years team was a lot less “talent rich” than it appeared. Anyone know when the last time Cal had only three drafted guys? (I don’t feel like spending the time to figure out how to figure it out.) Last year clearly was not the most talented Cal team out there. With that in mind, it seems to me that expectations last year were a bit high and since the team met those expectations I’ve got to feel like the team over-achieved a bit. I still would have liked to walk away from both Maryland and Arizona without that bad taste in my mouth to really feel like they fully achieved everything the team was capable of, but at the same time, I don’t feel so bad about walking away from Corvalis knowing we lost to a team with 4 defensive draft picks and 6 overall.

UPDATE on how weak draft effects recruiting:

Some have mentioned that they see the biggest impact of the weak draft being on recruiting. The thought is that the potential recruits are looking at how much respect the program gets with NFL teams. They’re looking to get drafted themselves someday and they would hope that they’d get the benefit of the doubt. Some teams get it (USC) some teams don’t (Washington State). Where does Cal fit in?

Well, I think it is a reasonable perspective, but I think it’s not a very big deal to have one weak year. Cal has had a lot of strong years of late, and this is just one setback. When one couples all the other positives with the Bears including the press that guys like Jahvid Best is getting now and DeSean, Marshawn and Rodgers have gotten in the past. Everyone besides USC on the west coast has had a bad year in the last few years, Cal would not be alone here. Add in that Cal has a lot going for it with the SAHPC, a team with a 4 season bowl winning streak and a number of other upsides and I think recruits will be plenty satisfied that one weak draft year is not indicative of the program.

(Written by kencraw)

We’ve started a new tradition at the Spring Scrimmage, take a picture of the entire family!

(You’d be surprised how much photoshop is in that picture)

(Written by kencraw)

OK, we’re in for the longest, most painful stretch of the year. No college basketball to distract us. No recruiting signing day to wet our appetite. Heck, spring practice, even for those who couldn’t attend was like heaven compared to what we’re about to endure.

FEAR NOT! I’ve got you covered. Here’s what you can expect from me this off-season:

• Looking back series from the 2nd half of 2007
• Looking back series for all of 2008
• An early prediction for each game of the season (after the rest of the Pac-10 spring ball’s wrap up)

So, you’ll be seeing posts from me every week between now and fall practice (only 14 weeks away!) Those 2007 looking back posts will start by next week with the Oregon State game.

UPDATE: A request for my readers… does anyone know where I can get video of some of our older Tedford games? I have every game since 2005 (my own copies that I recorded) but in particular I would like to add the following games to my collection:

2002 Big Game
2002 USC Game
2003 Big Game
2003 USC Game
2003 Oregon Game
2004 Big Game
2004 USC Game
2004 Oregon Game
Other’s I’m looking for:
1982 Big Game (not abreviated version, I’ve got that one)
1991 Big Game

(Written by kencraw)

As promised, I took more pictures of the SAHPC construction at the final spring practice. For the most part, not much had changed. The two notable things were…

Actual excavation on the south end by the I-House:

And a newly brought in pile-driver:

(Assumably to drive all those retaining steel beams into the ground)

Other than that, not much had changed:

You can see the rest of the collection here:
http://thecrawfordfamily.net/gallery/sahpc-4-18-09

(Written by kencraw)

(Note, I was going to have a separate post on spring practice overall, but it seemed wiser to combine them.)

Well, it’s a few days late, but since nobody pays me to write on this blog, I can safely say it is not a few dollars short… that said, here are my thoughts:

It’s been interesting to read other commentors thoughts on the scrimmage because some of them were really similar to mine and others were widely different. Perhaps it was because I was very focused on keeping stats as opposed to just observing, but I’m in disagreement with those like Hydro who believe Sweeney had the best day. It was most definitely Mansion.

Mansion hit everything and had a couple of good medium length passes. Until that interception on his final drive, he was perfect. Not just 7-for-7 perfect, making the right reads at the right time perfect… every. single. play. He looked aweome to me. He looks like a completely different quarterback than he did a week ago. The lightbulb seems to have turned on for him.

Sweeney on the other hand, while I agree his statistics were worse than his perfomance, looked pretty mediocre and too quick to tuck the ball and run. Said another way, if you thought he looked good at that practice, you should have seen him in the last couple weeks. This was a somewhat off day for him.

Riley, well, everyone was a bit disappointed with him. It wasn’t a horrible day, but it wasn’t great and ensured that the last week or so of practice didn’t send him out on the right note. He’s still the starter at this point, but he’s not distancing himself like he was for the first few weeks.

One thing people forget is that during spring, the defense traditionally dominates. The offenses tend to come into their own later and require more teamwork to be successful. This is particularly true on the offensive line.

I got thinking about that because I was pretty hard on them in my podcast. But the one thing the O-Line didn’t have going for them this spring is that they did more rotations and experimentation with positions than any unit on the field. They substituted in guys left and right, all throughout the spring. So they didn’t have those 5 guys who had 4 weeks getting comfortable with one another.

Overall, that’s a good thing. The coaching staff knows it doesn’t matter if the O-Line is good in April, only that it is good in September. Spending the time and effort to evaluate lots of different linemen in lots of different positions both helps them setup a strong depth-chart for the fall but also ensures that the players get lots of experience, particularly those who will have to come in when the injuries come (and they always do).

So, don’t be too hard on the offense and particularly the offensive line just yet.

That said, this defense had the potential to be something special. It’s getting to the point where Syd no longer stands out as exceptional because everyone is starting to play at his level. Cameron Jordan, announcers should spend more time making sure they can pronouce his name that Alualu’s because he’s going to be getting in the backfield a lot next year.

I’m just not going to go through it position by position because I don’t want to get that excited. This defense will be good at every position and has the potential to be exceptional at at least 7 positions. I’ll go out on a limb and say that unless USC repeats last year’s incredible defensive performance, which is unlikely with the losses they sustained, Cal will have the conference’s best defense.

Minus the concerns at O-Line, I think the position to be most worried about is fullback. While I think Brian Holley will be servicable, I don’t get the feel he’s going to fill the shoes of his predicessors. I’m hopeful that some of the youth behind him will come a long way in the off-season, particularly if Will Kapp can bulk up some, but Holley is the guy with the most experience and I think it will be important that he step up a little bit from where he is now.

Finally for the offense, because I’m not going to talk about the plethora of wide-receivers who obviously are making strides and at least 3 of them are going to be more than capable next year, I think the tight-end position will be just fine. Tad Smith was out with an injury for the last week and Anthony Miller filled in great. That’s two better than servicable tight-ends which is plenty considering the youth behind them. It’s too bad the fans didn’t get to see Tad in action. He’s pretty good.

Overall, I don’t yet see a team that is poised to make a run at the Rose Bowl, but I do see one that with some modest improvement in key areas, particularly QB, FB and O-Line, could be in position to do that. They’ve got to be ready to make that run right out of the gates because Maryland would love to prove that last year’s game was not an aboration and the first two conference games are the likely challengers for the Pac-10 crown.

GO BEARS!

(Written by kencraw)

My final Spring Practice Podast is up at BearTerritory.net:

http://cal.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=938700

As always, the podcast is free for all to listen to.