(Written by kencraw)

Well, apparently all it took for the trees to be cut down is for me to leave the state. They started cutting down the trees today, getting somewhere between 4 and 10 of them down as well as pruning more thoroughly the trees around the redwood the tree-sitters are in to further isolate them in that tree. Looks like the goal is to get all of the trees, minus the one that the tree-sitters have been isolated to, down over the weekend. The hope is that by that point, the remaining 4 tree-sitters will be demoralized enough to finally come down and the final tree can be cut down.

If not, I’m sure the University will do the forcible removal sometime shortly thereafter.

A couple notes about the new lies being spread by the tree-sitters and their supporters:

I saw the raw video of the UC Spokeman Dan Mogulof’s press conference this morning. He in no way was deceptive about what was going to be done today. Some of the reporting on that press conference may not have been the best, but he clearly stated that they were starting the project now and they would not be waiting to do anything, including cutting the trees down. He said the first thing they were going to do is prune around the redwood but that the rest of the steps to start the project as soon as possible. Particularly since he used the phrase “this morning” in regards to the pruning there was no indication that the only activity today would be pruning as the tree-sitters have accused.

The other thing they’ve been saying is that the University would give three-days warning before starting. Those who’ve been following my posts on the subject know that’s not true, but what they’re trying to manipulate was a two-day promise (and it cracks me up that they turned it into three) and that two-day promise was that they would wait two days after the trial hearing ended for the other side to be able to file an appeal. There was no promise that they’d wait any further after the appellate junction.

But the lies are no surprise. They’ve been using any lie they can for the last two years to try and win some public support, which has been few and far between outside of a small radical community in Berkeley.

(Written by kencraw)

This afternoon I flew out from Sacramento International (I think there’s a couple flights to Cancun or something, either that or they don’t realize that Hawaii is the 50th state) to Seattle and from Seattle to Spokane. I got into town around 8 PM, picked up the rental car, got some dinner and settled into my hotel room. Tomorrow I’ll drive from Spokane to Pullman, a 75 mile drive that takes about an hour and a half for the game.

Spokane is a much bigger town than I realized, with a significant number of small skyscrapers (well, of the 10-20 story variety) and a fairly big downtown area. However, unlike California, there is nearly no sprawl on the outside of town. Coming into the airport all one saw was miles and miles of fields (wheat?) and a fairly densely populated town popping out of it.

More blogging on the trip tomorrow.

(Written by kencraw)

WE WON! WE WON! WE WON!

I’ll just quote the whole thing:

On August 26, 2008 the Alameda County Superior Court filed an “Order after Hearing” (Exh. 26) and “Respondents’ Amended Judgment,” which was “effective and enforceable immediately.” (Exh. 25 at 281:10-11.) The following day appellants filed a Notice of Appeal. (Exh. 27.)

In prior briefing respondents represented that if appellants filed their Notice of Appeal and contemplated Petition for a Writ of Supersedeas and Request for an Immediate Stay within two business days they “will continue to take no further action to implement the Southeast Campus Integrated Projects until the Court of Appeal rules on any such immediate stay request.” (Exh. 20 at 246:7-13.) Appellants objected to what they characterized as the respondents’ attempt to substitute a voluntary stay in lieu of a court-ordered stay. (Exh. 24.)

On August 28, 2008 appellants filed a Petition for Writ of Supersedeas, Mandate, Prohibition or Other Appropriate Relief and supporting documents. The petition prays for inter alia an immediate temporary stay of the University’s threatened construction-related activities, an immediate 20-day extension pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (g), and the issuance of a writ of supersedeas.

On September 3, 2008 respondents filed an Opposition to Request for Immediate Stay and to Petition for Writ of Supersedeas, etc. and also moved that we take judicial notice of six volumes of exhibits previously filed in conjunction with an earlier writ petition, California Oak Foundation v. The Regents of the University of California, A122172. By operation of law an automatic 20-day stay goes into effect if “a stay is in effect at the time of filing the notice of appeal.” (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 1094.5, subd. (g).) In the context of this statute, “stay” refers to a judicial stay, not respondents’ promise to refrain from further activities. (Ibid. [“the court in which proceedings under this section are instituted may stay the operation of the administrative order or decision”; “no such stay shall be imposed or continued if the court is satisfied that it is against the public interest.”].)

Because there was no judicial stay in effect when the notice of appeal was filed, the statutory 20-day stay is not in effect. The motion that we take judicial notice, pursuant to Evidence Code sections 459 and 452, subdivision (d)(2) of the six volumes of exhibits previously lodged with this court in conjunction with Case Number A122172 is granted. The petition for a writ of supersedeas, mandate and/or prohibition and the related requests for an immediate stay and a 20-day stay are denied. (McGuiness, P.J., Siggins, J., and Jenkins, J.)

What does this mean? It means it is time to fire up the chainsaws! The University can start cutting anytime.

(Written by kencraw)

My statistical preview of the WSU game is posted over at BearTerritory.net:

http://cal.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=846189

This one is a subscription article… all the more reason to signup!

(Written by kencraw)

My BearTerritory.net podcast has been posted over at their site:

http://cal.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=845989

For those wondering where my On The Road Home podcast is, it has been unfortunately delayed. I did record it on the way home, but I haven’t had time to edit it up. Usually I do my post-game podcast editing and game reviews on Sunday but I was busy trying to finish my bookshelves and desks (don’t ask about the status, please 🙁 ) and I haven’t been able to find the time during the week. Hopefully I can get it posted today. At the very latest, it’ll happen Saturday morning from a hotel in Spokane before I drive up to Pullman.

(Written by jsnell)

Once again, our podcast features three guys talking about Cal football for 35 minutes.

Topics this time:
* The Michigan State game, from the stadium and on the TV
* Quarterback Controversies
* Washington State preview
* Bemoaning the rise of Comcast SportsNet West, unless you live in Sacramento like Ken, in which case it’s just fine.

Michigan St. Review, Washington St. Preview [ 34:58 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

(Written by kencraw)

Here’s my week #1 poll (see here for background):

Rank	Team	Delta
1	Southern Cal	—
2	Florida	—
3	Oklahoma	—
4	Georgia	—
5	LSU	—
6	Missouri	3
7	West Virginia	—
8	Alabama	18
9	Ohio State	1
10	Oregon	—
11	Texas	—
12	Auburn	3
13	Texas Tech	1
14	Kansas	8
15	Wisconsin	2
16	Arizona State	3
17	Brigham Young	2
18	Penn State	2
19	Illinois	1
20	Virginia Tech	14
21	Fresno State	5
22	Utah	4
23	California	3
24	UCLA	2
25	Notre Dame	—

Thoughts?

The one thing I give a big bump for is playing good teams early. I’m not impressed by beating up on Southeastern Rhode Island State (not to be confused with Southeastern Rhode Island University). But if a team plays a significant team from another BCS conference and win, that’s going to mean much more to me. In fact, I’d go so far as to say I rank those teams higher than I think their talent deserves, but as far as proving themselves, they’ve done more than the other teams to prove themselves, so they get the benefit of the doubt. Included in this are UCLA, Alabama, Fresno State, Missouri and although they were already at the top, USC.

Other things of note:

• I’m pretty unimpressed with Arizona State, only putting 30 points on Northern Arizona.
• Illinois doesn’t lose much respect from me for losing to a higher ranked team.
• Yes, Notre Dame stays at 25 even though they didn’t play. In some sense not playing is no worse than playing SE-RI-State
• I feel uncomfortable with my Virginia Tech ranking, but I still think they’re best in the ACC and had an off day.

(Written by jsnell)

Let’s kick this season off!

Kevin Riley handled himself quite well.

We saw a lot of speedy Jahvid Best.

We saw very little of Nate Longshore throwing to Cal receivers…

…but saw him throw to Michigan State defenders twice.

We may never see him throw again, however.

In the end there was a nice huge run by Shane Vereen…

…and after a last defensive stand, Cal fans went home happy. The Bears are 1-0.

See the whole Flickr set here.

And now to bed. More observations coming at a more decent hour.

(Written by jsnell)

I said I could post blogs on my iPhone, not that I could do it coherently…

Best: fast but I’m not convinced he’s great up the middle.

MSU snapping: really bad. More practice.

Cell service at Memorial: not good.

Longshore! Well, the controversy is now at an end. Terrible performance. No more excuses.

Cal defense: your traditional Gregory bend-but-don’t-break story.

Hippies unfurl banner on Panoramic Hill. “We Can Have Old Trees + Gyms.” Banner is on old trees. Now where’s my gym?

(Written by kencraw)

Here are my updated predictions for the season now that everything has settled out:

Cal 41, Michigan State 27:
On paper, MSU looks to be a formidable opponent. However, between the spring and now expectations have fallen a bit with them no longer in the top-25 of any major poll. The offense is also experience laden with senior quarterback, Brian Hoyer, in this third season starting under center, a senior running back coming off a nearly 1500 yard season and over 2700 yards in his career as well as an offensive line with 3 seniors and 2 juniors. On defense MSU doesn’t look quite as strong up front but will have a formidable secondary with all four spots manned by players with lots of experience. All of that aside, my gut says that this is a well over-appreciated. The team was 7-6 overall last year and 3-5 in a VERY weak Big 10. Call me an optimist if you wish but Cal will keep the MSU running game in check and that will be all that is needed to ensure a win with the offense clicking early. (Change from spring: none)

WSU 13, Cal 35:
If for some miraculous reason WSU is able to pull the upset against Oklahoma State in their opening game, this game may not be the walk in the park I expect it to be. With a new head coach a big upset can fuel a team to play above its pay-grade. Since I don’t expect that upset to occur, I don’t expect this game to be a tough one and the Wougs will go down easy. (Change from spring: none)

Maryland 20, Cal 35:
Maryland is a very young team going into 2008. Their starter at quarterback has never taken a snap. Their running back has only one year of experience under his belt and it wasn’t a very good one. The rest of the roster is full of freshmen and sophomores and the occasional inexperienced junior. Considering the team just snuck into a bowl game at 6-6 with their experienced roster last year and couldn’t pull off the victory despite Oregon State spotting them 14 points in the 1st quarter, I don’t think there is much to fear from Maryland, despite the fact they will enter the game undefeated after beating up on two patsies. (change from spring: reducing from the absolute blowout of 10-45. One should never expect that big of a win when going cross country.)

Cal 26, Colorado State 13:
If the Bears had not squeaked by versus Colorado State last year I would say that this game would have the potential to be a letdown game. Colorado State had a rough year last year, losing their first six games (including a 28-34 loss to Cal) before playing .500 ball to finish out the season 3-9. However, the team lost very little of its now “school of hard knocks” battle tested squad and looks quite experienced coming into this season. Colorado State could themselves be undefeated if they can pull the opening week upset against Colorado before playing two patsies of their own. Nevertheless, the Bears won’t forget what happened last year and will be ready to show the home crowd why we have reason to be excited about 2008, even though the end score reflects a dirty, drag ’em out victory. (change from spring: none)

Cal 30, Arizona State 24:
ASU will be fresh off having their teeth knocked out of their heads versus the highly regarded Georgia Bulldogs when they come to Berkeley. Nevertheless, they’ll still be 3-1 after beating up on two patsies and Stanford, who will be a tougher challenge this year than people originally thought. The pundits are pretty high on ASU mostly because Rudy Carpenter is back under center and their experience on the offensive line. What is forgotten is just how much talent ASU lost to graduation, particularly on defense. Expect Cal to be out for blood against this finesse team and romp to an early lead before the resolve of ASU under Erickson tightens the score. (change from spring: none)

Arizona 27, Cal 24:
Normally I would say that Cal getting Arizona before November is a good thing. However, I think this is the year that Arizona continues their trend of mediocrity to enter the game versus Cal 3-3, losing to UCLA, Washington and Stanford. Arizona will be desperate to get back on track versus the Bears to stay in the hunt for bowl eligibility before getting to the meat of their schedule. As much as I hate to say it, and when reviewing this in the fall I’m even more loath to say it, this is Cal’s letdown game on the road and the 5-0 curse continues. It’ll feel eerily like 2006 where it looks like the wildcats are going to go down early before clawing back into it in the 2nd half and taking the lead late in the game. (change from spring: closing from 27-21 to a field-goal margin)

Cal 35, UCLA 20:
The quarterback situation at UCLA is one that should make every legitimate college football fan feel sorry for UCLA. How many QB injuries can one team sustain? There will be even more reason to feel sorry for them after their brutal schedule to open the season where they could enter the game as low as 2-5, although they could be as high as 4-3. Nevertheless, Cal won’t let a repeat of 2007 occur particularly with this game at home and the home win streak in this series will grow to 10. (change from spring: revising scores down from 49-27)

Cal 20, Oregon 23:
Here’s a sure betting tip for all you gamblers out there: NEVER take the over for the Cal-Oregon game. This game is always lower scoring than everyone expects. If this game was early in the season I would expect Cal to win and win easily. By this point however, the inexperience that Oregon will have had early in the season, particularly at the skill positions, will be long gone and Oregon will be clicking on all cylinders. If the Bears can win this game it would set them up for the key showdown with USC the following week. Alas, the very experienced Oregon defense will stifle the Cal offense and Oregon wins this one in one that comes down to the wire yet again. (change from spring: no change despite QB issues at Oregon… although if it turns out as nasty as it could, Oregon could disappoint a lot of people and this game could be much easier than I think)

USC 27, Cal 20:
My gut says that USC will lose another uncharacteristic Pac-10 game in 2008. I’m guessing it is either Arizona or Washington because I don’t think WSU has it in them and Oregon and ASU wouldn’t qualify as “uncharacteristic”. Nevertheless, the one loss in conference play will ensure that this game is for all the marbles yet again and yet again the USC defense will be the deciding factor. Sorry Bear fans, no Rose Bowl in 2008. (change from spring: none)

OSU 13, Cal 41:
I don’t know if I’ll ever figure this out, but a trip to Corvallis may help me understand why the Cal-OSU series is the antithesis of the Cal-UCLA game. The home team hasn’t won this game since 2002 when the Beavers actually won at home in Tedford’s first year. That trend will continue this year as the Bears are desperate to get back on track after back-to-back loses to Oregon and USC. OSU will also be having difficulty filling all the holes in the depth chart as the usual injuries pile up this late in the season. Expect Cal to romp and romp early.

Cal 38, Stanford 17:
Two words: RE – VENGE! The Cal defense will be out for blood in this one and the offense will be back to clicking like early season form. Stanford will be fairing far worse than most with the injury bug depleting an already thin depth chart. The one difference is that Stanford’s offensive line should be good enough that Stanford won’t need 3 QB’s and Cal fans won’t find themselves answering the difficult question of whether it is more morally bankrupt to feel sorry for whoever is the next Stanford QB to take that beating or to show no mercy. (change from spring: revising up Stanford’s score significantly from 3 points. This team showed to have a lot of heart and plucky resolve Thursday. It’ll still be a Cal win, but not an absolute blowout.)

Cal 31, Washington 17:
The only reason to fear this game is if it was in Seattle, since it is now early December or if the Huskies are but one victory from bowl eligibility. However, my guess is that Washington will have likely found their 7th loss against UCLA two games prior because of their BRUTAL non-conference schedule. They have the nation’s toughest schedule two years in a row with non-conference games against Notre Dame, Oklahoma and BYU (even if the national rankings show them as #2, there’s is the toughest because Notre Dame is better than people think (See Danzig, at least it’s consistent Catholic homerism)). Add in having to play the conferences three toughest teams (USC, Oregon and Cal) on the road as well as the Apple cup in Pullman and it’s going to be tough for the Huskies to get to their last game with only 6 losses. Expect Cal to grind this one out on the ground and only go to the air when necessary with the young defensive front being unable to hold off the determined Cal offense. (change from spring: none)

Cal 35, Kansas 19:
The Holiday bowl is not a happy camper faced with a Texas vs. Cal match-up “by the numbers”. Unwilling to pick below their ranking on both sides, they pick Cal because of their good historical showing in San Diego and because Texas was just there the prior year. Instead they go for Kansas who has taken the #2 spot yet again in the Big-12 north. Their other choice was Texas Tech. in third place in the Big-12 south but they didn’t want a rematch of 2004. (change from spring: none)

So, no major changes here. I was tempted to change both the Arizona and Oregon games or at least one of them to a win, but in the end, this feels like a 9-3 team, even with Riley under center. Mark my words: there will be a moment this season where Riley makes a big mistake that sinks the Bear’s hopes in that game. I say this not because I don’ think Riley is good, but because only one quarterback in 1000 don’t, if that. Riley is still very young with only 7 quarters under his belt and two of them were not very sharp (albeit the first two).

So, 9-3, losses to USC and Oregon and one other “unexpected” loss to a team like Arizona. That’s my ‘general’ prediction. We’ll see how it turns out.

(Written by kencraw)

The last week has been an absolute blur for me. Between a busy week at the day job, bookshelves and desks in the woodshop that I’m furiously trying to finish before the deadline I promised my wife of “before football season starts” (I got an extension until Labor Day), going to practices and press conferences for BearTerritory.net and a TV interview, the amount of time I’ve had to think about the upcoming game is pretty small.

But as I showed on TV, not having time to think has never stopped me from blathering away.

So I looked up my post-Spring Practice game-by-game predictions to see what I had to say about MSU (as an aside, expect updated preditions for the season before tomorrows game):

Cal 41, MSU 27

While I think the numbers might be a bit high (perhaps 34-24 feels more right at this moment), I think my thoughts on MSU were about right. Cal is not going to overlook MSU because they’re a mediocre Big-10 team, which is good, and the fact is that they’re a mediocre Big-10 team, which is even more good.

In an lot of ways I expect MSU to be very similar to Minnesota who Cal played in 2006. They’re just a little too one-dimensional to be a true threat to the Bears. The one thing that the Pac-10 teaches its teams is balance. Defenses need to be ready to stop both the pass and the run. There’s not a single team in the conference that shutting down one aspect of their game is going to completely shut them down.

As such, when Cal faces a one-dimensional team, whether they be run-oriented or pass-oriented, they usually do well. Playing defense is A LOT easier, when the other team is one-dimensional. MSU would be well suited to start the game on a passing spree because the Bears are going to be very geared up to stop the run. They won’t at all be expecting a pass-heavy set of play-calling.

But here’s to thinking that MSU is just as incapable of doing that as Minnesota was a couple years back. I expect this game to be easier than everyone expects. While it won’t be a walk in the park, when it’s all said and done I expect there to be a lot of fans thinking “what were we so worried about?”.

So I’m sticking with my spring prediction: 41-27

(Written by kencraw)

Another update on the SAHPC published over at BearTerritory.net:

http://cal.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=843908

(Written by kencraw)

My podcast from Tuesday’s practice and press conference is posted over at BearTerritory.net:

http://cal.rivals.com//content.asp?CID=843609

It’s got audio quotes from Tedford, Riley, Follett, Williams and young WR Marvin Jones.

(Written by kencraw)

We’ve got 19 people signed up for the Pick’Em league, which is a good number. However, if you’ve been on the fence, the day to sign-up is today because the first game of the season, Oregon State at Stanford, is tonight.

For those already in the league, a couple of reminders:

• Please be patient after tonight’s game regarding properly posted results. The under the cover code that goes and gets the scores has yet to be fully tested for this year and I’ll have to make sure it’s doing the right stuff come game time. I promise to have it all worked out overnight though.
• Week 2 start MONDAY with the UCLA vs. Tennessee game. Since the college football week ends Sunday, it’s a week 2 game even though it “feels” like a week 1 game. Put your picks in now.

(Written by jsnell)

We’re back with another three-man podcast featuring Ken Crawford, Jason Snell, and Philip Michaels.

Among our topics:

• How little we know about Michigan State
• Observations from spring practice
• Longshore and Riley
• Tedford’s failings
• Hippies, trees, and getting into Memorial Stadium
• Plans for the blog this season

And of course, we come up with the idea for a new running segment in the podcast, “What Makes Phil Cry?”

All the Cal Football you can stand — and more — in 36 minutes.

Michigan State Preview [ 36:55 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

(Written by kencraw)

I was so busy with interviews and press conferences and practices yesterday I didn’t get a chance to chech for a ruling. Looks like late yesterday Judge Miller issued her updated judgment. And the key phrase is the last line:

…the preliminary injunction entered on February 9, 2007, is hearby dissolved. The Amended Judgment is effective and enforcable immediately.

Some of you are thinking, “Woohoo! Trees come down today!”

But remember, the University has promised that with this ruling, they will not start on construction immediately (and that means not cutting down the trees) if Judge Miller ruled this way, even thought the court documents seem to indicate so.

The promise was they wouldn’t start construction until:

1. Two days pass and no appeal has been filed.
2. If an appeal is filed, the appellate judge refuses to grant an injunction.

So, that means construction could start as early as Friday if Volker and company don’t file their appeal, although nobody expects that.

What it really means is that we’re back to a waiting game again, this time for the appellate jugde. When they get the case, they’ve got a handful of options and just about as much time as they want to do one of the following:

My understanding is that the length of time we should expect to be waiting is on the order of a week, or maybe two. As an example, when the previous appeal was made, it was made on July 25th and the judge made his ruling rejecting it as premature on August 7th. However, from what I can tell, there are either no deadlines or the deadlines are so long that they’re not usually relevant.

Hopefully the COA (appellate court) doesn’t get gun-shy now that the case is actually in their hands and the trees can come down sometime shortly after the Michigan State game (which everyone agrees will still have the Berkeley zoo still in full operation on gameday).

As an FYI along those lines: read this letter to Cal fans with updates on how to deal with the protests and congestion.

(Written by kencraw)

Well, the interview went well yesterday… or so I thought:

I know that we’re often our own worst critics but MAN my facial expressions were flat. Yeah, the answers were fine. But I just can’t get over how, as Jason put it in an IM discussion with me “you did sort of look like your cat had just died”. I mean, I SPECIFICALLY said to myself “make sure you’re smiling” because I know that I can look a bit stone faced in pictures. In fact, I remember a couple moments when I tried to smile more. There’s absolutely no indication of that attempt on film.

I mean, how is even POSSIBLE that I can look both like this:

and this:

Oh well…

In any case, here’s a little background on how it all works. They sent me to the University studio when the show was being taped in the morning. They put me in a little room with no more than a chair with a backdrop and video equipment. Then they put a mic on me and an earbud in my ear. The earbud had the audio from the show as well as occasional cut-ins from the producers with instructions or heads up.

That’s all I had. No video monitor to see what was going on. No teleprompter with questions that were going to be asked (they did give me a general idea in the studio that they’d be asking about Riley as starting QB, Javhid Best, the 3-4 and team chemistry, but that’s about the extent of it). Nothing. So if you’re one who noticed that my eyes kept shifting off camera too, I have NO IDEA what I was looking at. I think it was mostly that I felt pretty disengaged and distant as opposed to feeling like I was “talking to the camera”.

While I guess the equipment setup is the norm, I had no idea what to expect and was a bit thrown off by it. But what REALLY threw me off, was the pacing of the show. I had never watched the show before, so I had no idea. I was expecting something a bit more drawn out with more detailed discussion as opposed to the quick hitting, fast paced answering that was expected.

So when the first guy from USC, who’s not in the clip, started blathering away at lightning speed, I had a huge “oh crap” moment. I knew I would get about a 15 second warning when my turn was up, so I quickly in my head got ready to just fly through my answers and did my best to prepare them. I knew that when the moment came I just had to spew out whatever was first on my mind. “Don’t think, just talk”, I told myself. As an example, I had no idea I’d say that Riley’s attitude/energy might make a difference after the first loss. It’s just what came to mind while I was blathering away. The whole thing was just a stream of consciousness. There wasn’t even time to think. In fact, I couldn’t have told you afterwards that I said that. I couldn’t even say how long I was on the air.

I think the next time I’m on I’ll do a lot better. I’ll spend a lot of time prepping content to say. What I noticed from the other two guys (the 3rd guy was Florida) was that they didn’t mind straying from the question and would just keep talking as long as the host would let them, so that’ll allow me to prepare content and use it liberally after quickly answering the question. Basically, the first time you pause, no matter what you just said, they’re asking their next question.

Also, I’ll spend some time in front of a camcorder “having a little talk” with Mr. Stone Face.

All in all though, I was happy with my answers. My only complaint was with the stone faced delivery. In fact, I’m genuinely surprised my answers were as good as they were considering how it all came about and how much of a blur it was. I think what saved me is that I’m so comfortable with the material, that there was never a moment I had to pause to come up with anything. I was able to “execute” on my “don’t think, just talk” and it didn’t make me sound stupid.

Hopefully I’ll get another chance to show I can do it better…

(Written by kencraw)

Watch College Football NOW today at 3:00 PM PDT to see me give my thoughts on Cal football to the NFL network crew.

The NFL network is on channel 212 on DirecTV and caried on a number of other providers usually in the same range of channels as the “extra” ESPN channels like ESPN classic, etc.

(Written by kencraw)

My third podcast from Fall Practice is now posted over at BearTerritory.net:

http://cal.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=842162

Discussion topics include Longshore vs. Riley and the wide receiver core.

(Written by kencraw)

Bearinsider.com has their regular article on the happenings in court today.

The key take-away is that Judge Miller did not judge from the bench, as I expected, but that she’ll rule in the next day or two.

But what was interesting is that the University made what seems like a minor concession to the other side, extending their two-day no-build promise to a promise to not start the chainsaws and bulldozers “until a ruling was obtained from the Court of Appeals” (quoted from the BearInsider article).

I’m curious about the actual language used in court. If the University promised what the article indicates they did, I think it’s a HUGE mistake. What seems to be assumed in the article is that the court of appeals would RULE quickly. That’s a huge difference from the court of appeals refusing to put an injunction in place while it hears the case, allowing for the construction to go forward while the appeal is being heard, and waiting for the final ruling.

While it’s defintely a good possibility that the court of appeals will reject the appeal rather quickly, I see it as a big risk to assume that.

Perhaps the language was more nuanced and it took into account the possiblity of an appeal without an injunction and my comments are much ado about nothing.

UPDATE as of 3:30 PM: The language was indeed FAR more nuanced than the article indicated. It specifically had the caveats I was concerned about and mentioned only that the University would wait until the appellate court ruled regarding putting a new stay in place. So basically they’re offering to wait until after the appellate court has ruled on an injunction as long as Judge Miller rules the way they want and the plaintiffs (tree-sitters, etc.) file an an appeal within two days including an immediate request for an injunction. If all of that happens, it’ll clear the way for construction to begin in a week or two.

In any case, keep your eyes pealed for a final judgment from Judge Miller in the next day or two and the associated commentary from me here.