(Written by kencraw)

Just a reminder for everyone that today the SAHPC court case is having yet another hearing. What about? I don’t anyone knows EXACTLY what it’s supposed to be about.

Originally it was about the request for a re-trial. But that’s no longer the case because it was withdrawn. However, by the time it was pulled, the appellate judge had made his ruling and it made it clear that Judge Miller was going to have to issue a new final judgement. So the hearing on the 25th hung around assumably to hear arguments about that, although the court documentation was never updated to explicitely say so.

Finally, last week the Panaramic Hills Association (PHA, the home-owners association) made a motion that, while the specifics of which have not been posted on the case webpage, it has been agreed that the motion will be heard on the 25th.

Add in that both sides have now submitted updated proposed judgments that the Judge will likely want to review and today should be a hodge-podge of discussions all around how to wrap this case up. Since that’s the case, I don’t expect Judge Miller to issue her final judgment today, but to take a couple days to review everything and publish her document.

For those counting, the key day is Wednesday if there’s any hope of getting the tree-sitters out and the trees down before Saturday’s matchup against Michigan State. If Judge Miller doesn’t rule by then, and it should be noted that she’ll have to rule the way the University wants in its entirety, well, expect to be disappointed on Saturday.

(Written by kencraw)

WOW! This really surprises me. Last night Tedford named Riley the starting QB, at least for the Michigan State game. He then reiterated what he had said earlier that both QBs will get playing time.

What’s surprising to me is not the timing of the announcement. Everyone expected an announcement late this week or over the weekend. What is surprising is that Riley got the nod. It is true that Riley has gotten stronger as camp has progressed. But it’s also true that Longshore has looked pretty sharp and in my opinion has had better command of the huddle and the team. Since that’s a quality Tedford cares a lot about, I figured it was going to be Longshore.

But clearly what has made the difference is that with Riley throwing as well as Longshore, his mobility became the difference.

What will be interesting to see is how much Teford (and Cigneti, let’s not forget that he’s a pretty big factor in offensive decisions) is willing to stick with Riley in his rough patches, particularly if those rough patches come early. Tedford has a history of sticking with his guy, as we all know. But Tedford also has a history of picking experience over talent.

It may be a whole new day in Cal Football.

(Written by kencraw)

Looks like the University is continuing in their plan to limit the movements of the tree-sitters. Today they started pruning the redwood tree that all the tree-sitters are in and surrounding trees to make it more difficult for the tree-sitters to move from tree to tree.

Of course anytime a cherry picker or a chainsaw gets fired up around the grove the tree-sitters start their wailing and shreaking.

See the SF Gate article for more details.

The one interesting note there is that “Dumpster Muffin” is back in Berkeley although not back in the trees.

(Written by kencraw)

My analysis of the defensive line during Fall Camp was just posted on BearTerritory.net:

http://cal.rivals.com//content.asp?CID=840508

As an FYI, this is a subscription article. I’d very much encourage people who like what I write to signup with Rivals as I’ll have about 3 articles a week that require a subscription during the season. It’s less than $10 a month which works out to be about $0.75 per article and that’s not taking into account the great articles by Chris and AW as well as access to the subscriber message board (which is by far the best subscription board between all the Cal subscription sites). If you care at all about recruiting or Basketball in addition to football game coverage, BearTerritory.net is the site to subscribe to.

For the financially challenged amongst us, have no fear about this blog suffering. Between the On The Road Home and yet to be named podcasts that Jason, Phil and I will be doing as well as the usual slew of posts including the best live-blogging of road games in the Cal blogosphere (with Jason as our gracious host), we intend to keep this the #2, yet highest quality Cal blog online.

(Written by kencraw)

For those not daily visiting the SAHPC court case page, there’s been a ton of activity. I summarized the current state of things as of this morning in an article just published at BearTerritory.net:

http://cal.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=840372

But even since this morning there has been fresh activity. The University submitted a proposed Judgment for Judge Miller to look over. Their hope of course is that Judge Miller just rubber stamps it.

The key development here is that the University is pushing REALLY hard to get these trees down before the MSU game. Their strategy now is to ask Judge Miller to immediately end the injunction with the knowlege that the University has promised not to cut any trees down for two days after the decision giving Volker and Co. two days to file an appeal and attempt to get an appellate injunction in place. By ending the injunction immediately, the whole 20-day extension for appeal is no longer relevant (how can an injunction that doesn’t exist get “extended”).

So in theory, if Judge Miller rubber stamps the University’s proposed Judgment, Fan Appreciation day on Saturday may be a LOT more exciting than we had previously thought, what with the screaming tree-sitters and the chainsaws echoing in Strawberry Canyon.

There is one thing I’m concerned with in the University’s strategy: Judges don’t like to be rushed. I’m not concerned with Judge Miller… she’s so sick of this case she can’t wait to get it off her desk. But the appellate judge is a different matter. If the University does indeed get the injunction lifted with only two days for Volker and Co. to get a new injunction in place from an appellate judge, I can easily see that judge being more likely to issue an injunction because of the shortness of time they get to consider it.

Said another way, if there were 24 days left in the injunction when the appellate judge first gets the case, that gives them plenty of time to think over what to do. They can read a bunch of the rulings and briefs and various submissions from both sides and get a good sense of things without ever having to make any decisions for a number of weeks. Once they’ve done that, they can then decide with confidence that there is nothing here that merits an injunction and deny that request with plenty of time to spare.

If, however, this judge has all of two days to make that decision, they’re going to feel VERY rushed. Many judges will be tempted to put on the brakes at this point so that they can take a more thorough look at the case. The way they do that is by instituting a temporary injunction. And once we’ve opened that pandora’s box at the appellate level, it’s going to be more difficult to get that injunction removed before the entire appellate process is completed.

So, is it worth that risk to potentially move up the tree cutting by 4 weeks? Maybe. Only time will tell.

(Written by kencraw)

I’ve updated the blogroll for what I think to be the best of the blogs around the Cal blogosphere. Is your blog missing? Well, drop me a line in the comment box.

As a reminder to those new here, here’s my criteria for inclusion in the blogroll:

1. Moral content: The #1 thing to prevent your blog from inclusion on the list is any content that is morally offensive. The most common example of this is frequent swearing. Does it really add anything to a post to say a player is f-ing pathetic? Find better words to describe yourself. Other examples include any suggestions of violence against anyone, this is college football not a war, or personal attacks against players or coaches beyond just their capabilities on the football field. It’s OK to say that Joe “Booya” Ayoob is the worst player to ever grace the Cal sideline and Tedford is a complete coaching moron to have let him stay behind center for as long as he did (even though I’d disagree), but to say you want to rip out his bowels and force-feed it to Tedford crosses the line. Finally, I expect the comment sections being in line with my moral standards and that the comments of the blog’s author on other blogs meet the standards as well (one blogger in particular suffers from this problem). For the comment sections, I don’t expect one to moderate to the degree that all comments meet my moral standards, but that truly, wildly objectional comments are deleted and somewhat to moderately objectionable content is somehow rebutted/chastized.
2. Frequency of posting: I’m only going to link to blogs with somewhat regular posting. Generally that means at least a couple posts a week during the season. I’m not too concerned with off-season posting but someone who is consistent all the time gets extra props.
3. Quality of posts: What this means depends on what your blog is trying to accomplish. If you’re just trying to report news, I’m not going to hold it against you that you don’t have detailed analysis. At the same time, if your goal is news and you’re always a week behind everyone else, well, that’s not very good news. On the other hand, if you’re a game-analyst type guy, I’m not going to hold slower posting against you, but I do expect that your analysis is meaningful. Generally what this means is if when I go to your blog, do I find something worth reading?
4. Longevity: I generally like to see that a blog has been around for at least a year before it gets the nod. This is partially to give me time to judge based on the above criteria and also because lots of bloggers drop off within a month or two of blogging.

(Written by kencraw)

My first two podcasts from Fall Practice are now posted over at BearTerritory.net:

http://cal.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=839355

You’ll notice that this is a change from the spring and last season where all the podcasts were hosted here. My podcasts from practices this year are going to be hosted from BearTerritory.net. However, the On The Road Home podcasts after each game as well as the usually mid-week group podcasts with Jason, Phil and I will still be posted here. Just an FYI.

(Written by kencraw)

After not getting a comment for a number of days I grew suspicious that something was up. So I logged out of my account to see what the blog looked like for average viewers. Sure enough, no comments allowed if you weren’t logged in. Long story short: the upgrade of the blog software changed my settings in a minor way tha prevented commenting by non-registered users.

I’ve fixed that now and comment boxes are open.

(Written by kencraw)

I’m at a complete loss for words at what has just came up on the SAHPC court case page:

Given Respondents’ clarification of Mr. Friedman’s statement and the other matters currently before the Court requiring the Court’s and the parties’ attention, Petitioners believe it is in the interest of the Court, the parties and the judicial economy to withdraw the motion for a new trial and motion to vacate the judgement

A document stating this was signed and submitted to the court today by Stephan Volker, lawyer for the Tree-Sitters, Michael Lozeau, lawyer for the home owners association, and Harriety Steiner, laywer for the City of Berkeley.

For those who don’t read legalese what that says is that the opposition has decided not to pursue their request for a retrial because it would be unlikely for them to win and they want to save everyone the time of going through the motions.

I find it nearly impossible to believe that Volker and company are withdrawing their motion because they believe it doesn’t have merit. That hasn’t stopped them with just about every motion/suit to date. In fact, they’ve stated publically that their STRATEGY is to delay as much as possible. There’s got to be a reason and I can’t say with any confidence what it is. Here’s my best guess:

Judge Miller gave them an ultimatium of some sort that basically said: “The appellate judge has said that you can’t appeal until I issue my final ruling. So here’s what I can do. I can give another order removing the injunction right now while I’m still sitting around waiting for the 25th to come and go. That’ll give the University 10+ days to cut down the trees while you can’t appeal because I have yet to make a final ruling. Since you don’t want that, here’s how it’s going to go… you guys withdraw your request for a retrial. The University will state that it isn’t going to file the stuff I allowed it to by 8/25. Then I’ll make my final ruling ASAP repeating what I ruled before and that gives you 7 days to re-file your appeal. That way this case is off my desk and you can file an appeal. Deal?”

To add to my theory, Cal submitted something themselves today: a statement saying they’re not going to file the stuff they were given until the 25th to file.

I could be WAY off in the weeds. It could be Volker found some judge he likes to take the appeal but he’s got to get that done soon for some legal reason. It could be there’s some other counter ticking we’re not aware of that he needs to speed things up for. It could even be that the grinch’s (AKA Stephen Volker) heart grew three times larger and he’s giving us back our athletic center. We’ll find out in the coming days.

What we do know is this: Judge Miller is pretty free at this moment to rule at any time and start the 27 day counter (7 days from Judge Miller before the injunction is vacated plus a 20 day automatic extension once the appeal is filed) until the trees can come down assuming some appellate judge doesn’t institute a new injunction.

The bad news, which we already knew, is that it is far less than 27 days until the first game at Memorial Stadium.

Any alternate thoughts on what just happened?

(Written by kencraw)

The BlogPoll is the invention of mgoblog’s Brian Cook. He solicits the opinion of LOTS of different bloggers and other web-oriented college football fans. He explicitely notes the team loyalties of each of his pollsters.

This year I have been invited to participate in the poll. The “normal” schedule is to create the weekly poll on Sunday or Monday and post it to your own blog for feedback from your readers to be finally posted on Wednesday morning. The preseason poll has a slightly different schedule with it being due next Monday.

In any case, here’s my preliminary preseason poll:

Comments?

(It’s worth noting that the expected difficulty of a team’s schedule is not supposed to be a factor in this poll. It’s supposed to be about how good the team is, not how many wins they’re going to get. The opposite is true for the end of the season, it’s not about how many wins they got, it’s about how good they proved to be, so difficulty of schedule should be a significant factor.)

(Written by kencraw)

I bet just about everyone is wondering what in #$@@$@#! has been keeping me from posting lately. Well, in truth, there’s been a lot of behind the scenes work going on.

Today you’ll notice a new banner for the blog thanks to Jason, and you may also notice that the blog software was upgraded. But those both pale in comparision to the amount of work that has gone into getting the new Pick’Em league ready.

The new Pick’Em league is a lot like last years but a number of changes have been made. First and foremost, the scoring has been simplified. When two electrical engineers walked away with the contest last year, it was a clue to me that perhaps things like logrhythmic bonus points for picking games early in addition to the additional complexity of forcing people to pick scores not winners and a formula associated to how those scores were translated into points, was just too much.

So things are simplified. Now notice that I didn’t say they were simple. While the bonus points system is gone, you’ll still have to pick the score for the game and there’s still formulas to determine who did the best job of predicting the score. That said, picking the winner is now 50% of the score and that’ll make things simplier on their own.

Also added this year is automated e-mail sending that’ll remind you if you haven’t made your picks yet and will give you updates on the league if you so desire. Finally there’s now a method to have your password reset if you forget it and don’t want to be at my mercy to get back in.

In any case, this is your chance to prove that you’re better at predicting games than all the most sophisticated Cal fans out there, and me too. Sign-up on the Pick’Em tab.

(Written by kencraw)

In my last update, on July 25th, I noted that the appeal had been filed in the case and that triggered an automatic 20-day extension on the appeal, extending it to August 18th from July 29th. Yesterday we got our first answer back from the appeals process:

Appeal denied!

But wait… before you go jumping in the streets to find the nearest watering hole, it’s not what you think, in fact, it’s quite the opposite. Here’s the key text from the ruling:

Although one of the three challenged rulings is denominated a “Judgment,” it is clear from the record that there is no final determination of the rights of the parties.

The trial court authorized a supplemental return notwithstanding its conclusion that the University’s June 27, 2008 response demonstrated that it did not intend to pursue the three alterations. The 30-day period within which to file the supplemental return does not expire until August 21, 2008, and appellants’ Motion to Vacate Judgment and For New Trial also remains pending in the trial court.

In this case, however, the companion Judgment never took effect, and, hence, the preliminary injunction is not yet dissolved. Rather, it remains in place, subject to future modification by the trial court, as appropriate.

In other words, Judge Miller’s case is not yet over and the appellate court will not hear an appeal until Judge Miller finalizes her rulings. And just for fun, he’s ruling that the injunction is in place, so don’t nobody go cutting down no trees!

So what does this mean?

Frankly, it means more delays. It means that at a minimum we’re looking at another extension, as best I can tell, until September 10th, based on the logic that if the appellate court is correct and the trial court case can’t expire before August 21st, then the earliest the original injunction could be dissolved is August 21st and then tack on another 20 days for the “automatic extension” for Volker and company filing another appeal now that the case is wrapped up.

But all of the above assumes that Judge Miller does whatever it is she needs to do so that she clears up the problems that the appellate judge is complaining about. That likely means that the hearing originally scheduled for August 12th and now rescheduled for August 25th is now more important than ever… probably. I suspect that Judge Miller is not going to schedule another hearing between now and then and I doubt she’ll clear up the appellate court’s concern without another hearing. The worst case scenario is that she schedules another hearing for this stuff and because of how things go, that won’t happen until early September. Give her a few days to wrap everything up and make a FINAL ruling and tack on another 20 days and we’re looking at the beginning of October before the run on chainsaws down at Home Depot starts.

So it looks like the 20 of you who voted for a late August tree cutting party in the poll are going to be disappointed and the 19 of you who voted for during the season or later are looking pretty smart right now.

More info to come…

(Written by kencraw)

Jason has been keeping the blog alive during my mysterious disappearance. Some have speculated that since my Looking Back series ended with Oregon, I must have done something terrible to myself when reviewing the Oregon State game. No such luck.

I’ve just been really busy wrapping my other hobby, Sailing, for the season with a final push to sail and organize regattas. That’s pretty much wrapped up now, so you should see me back in business now.

Here’s what you can expect:

• Blogging and Podcasting from Fall practice starting with next Tuesday’s practice
• A new Pick’Em league (similar to last year with less math involved)
• Wrapping up the Looking Back on ’07 series

That last one is going to be close on finishing before the season starts and will likely take a hiatus until after the season if I don’t wrap it up in time before the Michigan State game.

(Written by jsnell)

As we prepare for another season, here’s a flashback to an earlier, simpler era. An era where you could get season tickets for pennies. Where you could stretch out across five seats at most home games. An era where Cal was absolutely terrible.

The year is 2001. The coach is Tom Holmoe. The stadium is empty.

It sure makes me appreciate the era we live in now, crowded and expensive though it may be.

(For the record, this particular final score was Arizona 38, Cal 24. The loss dropped Cal to 0-8.)

(Written by jsnell)

There’s nothing that cures a season-killing streak in which you lose six of seven games like… removing names from your uniforms?

So says Jeff Tedford in today’s Chronicle:

Maybe as jarring as the gold stripe down the middle of the new Cal helmets, will be the lack of names on the back of the newly designed jerseys. Coach Jeff Tedford removed the names before last season’s Armed Forces Bowl as a tribute to the military, and he admitted Monday that the tribute will continue this season because it was a twofold statement. “After the way Washington and Stanford happened, it was evident that we all needed to come together and look at accountability issues,” Tedford said. “That’s what we did. It was taking identity off of individuals and putting it back on the team.”

Not to freak anyone out, but this is not the first time Cal has pulled a move like this. The last time it happened was during, you guessed it, the depths of the Tom Holmoe era.

Now I’m pretty sure that players are not able to spin their heads around, “Exorcist” style, and read their names (upside-down) on their jerseys as an ego boost. But there is one group that directly benefits from names being placed on jerseys: The fans.

While many of our readers no doubt can memorize the name and number of every Cal player — and can even pick on the subtle physical characteristics that differentiate that number 4 from that other number 4 — I’m betting that 99% of Cal fans can’t.

Names on jerseys help the process by, y’know, actually telling you the name of the guy who just made that play.

Of course the no-names-on-jerseys trick is a cheap motivator. But to me it reeks of desperation, perhaps (I admit) because this is the same kind of genius motivational tactic we saw in the tainted Holmoe era. And because it’s disrespectful to the fans.

But hey, I guess those of us paying hundreds or even thousands of bucks to go watch games in Memorial Stadium aren’t as important as a team-unity stunt. There are plenty of ways to preach team unity to a bunch of college athletes. Couldn’t they find one that didn’t degrade the fan experience?

(Update: Look, this is not exactly a gigantic issue that’s going to rock Cal’s football team to its foundations. But it’s just so stupid that it drives me batty. So I wanted to add one more point. If this is really about “taking identitity off of individuals and putting it back on the team,” why not go all the way? Assign jersey numbers randomly every week and give the number listing only to accredited members of the media! And don’t announce the names of players on the Memorial Stadium system! Make the fancy introduction video on the little BearVision screen all about the team and don’t read off the names of players in a pre-game ceremony. Sadly, the rules don’t allow you to remove numbers completely, but if you really want to “take identity off of individuals,” there are a lot of annoying things you could do. Why stop at nameplates? -J.S.)

(Written by kencraw)

Not that this is a huge surprise to anyone, but the injunction has been extended 20 days. This occured because the California Oak Foundation and the Panaramic Hills Association have filed an appeal. It’s an “automatic extension”, whatever that means. Apparently there is no need to post bond or anything like that for the 20 day extension as some had wondered.

So we’re back to August 18th as the earliest the trees will be cut down.

Also of note is that the City of Berkeley is not on the list for the new appeal. That’s because at last nights city council meeting, they decided to delay taking any action. While in theory they could decide later to file an appeal, with the injunctions due to expire their decision to wait (it appears they’re going to wait for 58 days, although I don’t understand if that’s logistics because of their vacation and when they meet or if there’s some other reason) is effectively a killer blow to the appeal. There’s no way the PHA can come up with the bond money they’d need without the City of Berkeley there to cover for them.

So to sum up, unless Judge Miller does something remarkable on August 12th in the request for a re-trial or unless the tree-sitters and PHA can find an appellate judge who will give them an injunction without a bond, an even more remarkable occurance if it occurs, August 18th is tree-cutting day.

(Written by kencraw)

The pre-game Storyline:
The biggest game of the season in the Pac-10 so far, Cal vs. Oregon would determine the front-runner to challenge USC for the conference championship. With Cal ranked #6 and Oregon ranked #11, it was considered a very even matchup once the home field advantage was taken into account. The game should be a shootout with both team’s offenses being nearly unstoppable all season.

The pre-game reality:
The reality was that Oregon and Cal had the most under appreciated defenses in the Pac-10. Particularly with the matchup between Belloti and Tedford, two coaches who know each other all too well, and hence their teams, well, the game was nearly guaranteed to be more balanced than the pundits thought. Oregon was also a fairly untested team when one took into account the reality that Michigan was in horrible shape when Oregon destroyed them in week 2. Cal, although more tested than Oregon, was also less tested than people believed.

The key plays:

• Oregon’s QB Dennis Dixon over threw a wide open receiver down the sideline on 3rd down on their first drive. Not only did it force Oregon to punt, it also cost the Ducks an easy touchdown.
• Jeremiah Johnson slipped some tackles to go for a 26 yard run after Cal had pinned Oregon deep in their territory with a good Larson punt. A couple 1st downs later, Oregon was able to kick a field-goal and put the Bears in an early, albeit small, hole 0-3.
• Jordan Kay got back on track after a couple shaky weeks, capping a meticulous drive by the Bears to tie the game at 3-3 mid-2nd quarter.
• A truly, remarkably bad personal foul call on Ezeff turned a 4th and 7 from near mid-field, to a 1st and 10 just outside of the redzone for Oregon. Ezeff’s hit was more than just legal, it was prudent the way Oregon had been tip-toeing up the sideline. The refereeing blunders continued on the next play when a blatant block in the back was not called on a reverse play that gave Oregon the 1st and goal they needed to take back the lead, Cal now down 3-10.
• Forsett broke a 30 yard run play to get Cal into the Oregon redzone. Unfortunately Kay’s kick went over the short Oregon goal posts and was called no-good on a very close kick leaving Cal down by 7, 3-10.
• A punt to DeSean never got to him because Oregon interfered with the opportunity to make the catch. That gave the Bears the ball near mid-field. A couple first downs later the Bears were in striking distance.
• Later on the drive, DeSean broke free on an exceptional post route for an easy touchdown to tie the game at 10-10 with less than 5 minutes left in the 3rd quarter.
• A Dixon to Colvin slant up the seam went for 42 yards and a touchdown, getting Oregon back their touchdown lead on the ensuing possession. It was clearly a missed assignment by the Cal secondary and the Bears were down again 10-17.
• DeSean caught a nice fade pattern down the sideline that would have gone for a touchdown had Jackson not had to try and tip-toe down the sideline. Nevertheless it got Cal down into the redzone where the Bears were able to punch it in and tie the game at 17-17.
• Jackson made an awesome stutter step move to run past the Oregon corner in route to another touchdown and to give Cal their first lead of the game, 24-17 with just over 11 minutes left in the game.
• Jahvid Best ran down and recovered the fumbled kickoff by Oregon. Cal got the ball back inside the Oregon 30. Unfortunately Cal was unable to make any progress from there and actually went backwards to take the Bears out of field-goal range. However, Cal was able to pin Oregon inside their own 10 yard-line.
• Back-to-back long passes got Oregon all the way down the field into the Cal redzone where Oregon was able to punch it in to tie the game at 24-24.
• Anthony Felder did a nice job of disguising his zone coverage and induced Dixon to throw his first interception of the season, giving Cal the ball just outside the Oregon redzone.
• With Longshore back behind center but obviously gimpy, Forsett and the offensive line took the team on their back and ran the ball in for a touchdown on three consecutive plays putting Cal up 31-24.
• After Oregon surprisingly easily marched down into the Cal redzone, Mika Kane tipped the ball for Alualu to intercept.
• Jeremiah Johnson eluded a handful of tackles on a play that would have had him down in bounds (and hence left the clock running) still in Oregon territory. Instead he was able to run across the field for a 30-yard gain and get out of bounds.
• And of course… the defining play of the game… Marcus Ezeff forced a fumble of Colvin just before the goal-line. The resulting touchback went to Cal because the ball crossed the goal-line and then dribbled out of bounds. This gave the Bears the ball back to take a knee and end the game.

The forgotten:

• The crowd noise at the beginning of the game rattled Cal on their first possession and was nearly the sole reason that not only did Cal go 3-and-out, but also managed to go backwards on those three plays.
• Oregon was heavily committed to stopping the run early in the game. Cal’s play calling played right into that with a heavy load of run plays.
• The 1st quarter had only 3 points, a field-goal by Oregon. Otherwise both offenses were mostly held in check despite both sides getting a fair amount of yards. There was a lot of “Bend But Don’t Break” working very effectively.
• On Cal’s first drive of the 2nd half, Cal started with a lot of play-action passing to loosen up the Oregon defense. The resulting gains got Cal onto the Oregon side of the field. At which point Cal was finally able to get some production from their running game.
• Cal’s defense held Oregon to almost zero offense on their first few drives of the 2nd half. That both gave Cal additional possessions and allowed them to wear down the Oregon defense.
• Although DeSean Jackson never got a good punt return opportunity nor was there a horrible shank trying to punt away from DeSean, his presence did play a big hand in the field-position game. There were a lot of very high and relatively short punts that gave Cal better than average field-position.
• Oregon fans are whiners about hits along the sideline, arguing for personal fouls when their players are tip-toeing up the sidelines. The most egregious was an extended boo for a play where Dixon was still well in-bounds when he was hit out of bounds inside the 5 yard-line.
• The game was still tied when Longshore went down injured. The Bears had to punt right away with Riley behind center who was only handing off to Forsett (and that’s what Oregon was expecting/defending).
• Longshore, although he came back into the game, never threw the ball again on two possessions. Oregon was clearly ready for this and outside of the short-field touchdown, completely shutdown the Cal running game.

The post-game storyline:Cal won a tight fought battle between two excellent teams, making Cal the clear challenger to USC for the Pac-10 title. With USC coming to Berkeley there was much to be hopeful for in a big showdown with USC. All Cal needed to do was beat the handful of mediocre Pac-10 teams that stood between Cal and the USC game.

The post-game reality:This is one of those rare games where the ‘storyline’ pretty accurately reflected the actual situation. The one catch was Longshore’s injury. However, at the time, every indication was that it was a minor sprain and with the bye-week in between the Oregon and Oregon State games, there was little to be concerned about… or so everyone thought.

The 2007 learnings:

• Marcus Ezeff was going to get a lot of playing time in 2007. He was coming of age as a young safety.
• DeSean Jackson still was the most electrifying threat on the team. While he had been in a minor slump for a few games, there was no doubt that when we wasn’t being double and triple covered, he was very dangerous.
• The Bend But Don’t Break defense was working at its best during this game. Both keeping Cal in the game when they were trailing and slowing the Oregon offense when Cal finally got the lead. Additionally it showed its ability to force interceptions with the frequent use of the zone defense in confusing ways that could induce errors by the opposing QB.

The 2008 implications:
Number 1 on the 2008 implications is that the Cal vs. Oregon game in Berkeley will be another good one. Looking at these two teams and both how stocked they are with young talent but also how many experienced players were lost in 2007, there’s every reason to believe that when these teams meet in November, we’ll be looking at two young teams that have come of age during the season. With them both reflecting the similar mindset of Belloti and Tedford, there’s every reason to believe it’ll be another close one.

The conclusion:
This was definitely the highlight of the 2007 season and was an extremely fun game to both be at and watch at home for the looking back series. This is Cal football with Tedford at the helm at its finest. What separates the last few seasons from 2004 was the consistency with which Cal has been able to play at this high level. In all 3 of the most recent seasons, Cal has had some troubling slumps that followed exceptional games like this one. What Cal needs to get over the hump is play with this kind of intensity and consistency through a whole season.

(Written by kencraw)

Now that the Injunction is due to be lifted, the whole tempo of the legal battles has changed dramatically. Before the 22nd, Volker would constantly be arguing for needing more time, going on vacation as frequently as possible, constantly asking the judge to take her time, etc.. That’s all changed now. It took Volker, the tree-sitter’s lawyer, all of a day to file his first motion to try and thwart the University.

Interestingly, his first action was not to appeal, but to call for a re-trial from Judge Miller. His logic is this: “Hey, we did this whole trial on the basis of a project defined with the grade beam. After Judge Miller said the grade beam was a alteration to the stadium, the University changed the project. That means we were unable to present legal arguments relevant to the final plans. We want a new trial where we can present arguments for the following:

1. That the stadium without the grade beam is still an alteration to the stadium
2. That the stadium without the grade beam is structurally unsafe and a violation of the Alquist-Priolo
3. That the stadium without the grade beam was not properly described in the EIR and therefor the EIR needs to be recirculated and reapproved

In summary, give us a new trial!”

This is the legal avenue I expected them to go down after the University pulled the grade beam, although I expected it to come at the hearing on 7/17.. However, Volker wasn’t given much of a chance to argue those points in the hearing on 7/17 because it didn’t “fit” anywhere in the discussion. Whether this was intentional by Volker to leave open this re-trial option or whether he really never got the chance is beyond my amateur legal skills.

In any case, a hearing as been set for 8/12.

So here’s how it goes: Volker will also file an appeal and try to get the 20-day automatic extension of the injunction to be triggered (there is some debate as to how ‘automatic’ this extension is and whether a bond needs to be filed, etc.). If he gets that 20-day extension, that’ll extend beyond 8/12. If Volker can successfully argue on 8/12 that a new trial should be held, he’ll then argue that Judge Miller should re-instate her original injunction.

Of course, all of this will require some pretty convincing arguing by Volker, both for the re-trial and for the injunction. Judge Miller seems to have finally caught on to the “game” that is being played by Volker and company and realizes just how much of a financial and logistical burden this trial is placing on the University. Unless there are some REALLY strong merits to the case, she seems to be swayed that it is unfair to keep holding up construction. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised to see Judge Miller grant a new trial but refuse to re-instate the injunction, basically saying that while she’s willing to hear their argument, she’s not going to hold the project up while hearing it.

So mark 8/12 on your calendar now as another important day in this legal battle.

As a final aside, I’ll be very interested to see if any of these lawsuits actually continue once the trees are cut down. On the one hand, once the project has been started, there’s not much to fight for. On the other hand, if the University moves forward with the project and then loses one of the lawsuits, it could cost the University over $100 million with a partially completed facility that has to be torn down, at University expense, and the big hole in the ground filled back in. While this extreme scenario is unlikely, it’s a pretty enticing scenario for any group who really wants to stick it to the University. They may stick it out after the trees have been cut down just out of their hatred for the University and the elusive golden nugget to stop the project mid-completion.

(Written by kencraw)

Well it FINALLY happened. Judge Miller ruled that the University can proceed with construction. There’s only one catch: She’s leaving the injunction in place for another 7 days to allow an appeal to be filed. Of course the tree-sitters have promised to. The City of Berkeley will likely decide tonight whether to join in. The Panaramic Hills Association status is unclear at this time. Of course, despite the promise of an appeal, whoever tries to has to find an appellate judge who is willing to put an injuction back in place both in the very short term to hear an argument for an extended appeal and the longer term for the length of the appeal. Additionally a bond will have to be posted if the City doesn’t join in.

UPDATE at 12:45 AM:

I’ve learned two things:

1. There is an automatic extension of the injunction of 20 days after an appeal is filed. That means 7/22 + 7 days -> 7/29 + 20 days -> 8/18 is “Cal Fan Appreciation Day” assuming all goes as expected and an appellate injunction is not granted.
2. It seems that the City of Berkeley has delayed their closed door city council meeting where they’ll determine whether to appeal until Thursday, although this is unclear.

To reiterate the basics of what I’ve said before about the appeal:

Everyone knows the appeal will fail. The only question is whether the appeal will cause a delay. The only way it causes a delay is if there is a new injunction put in place. That means they need to find an appellate judge who will grant an injunction and they’ll either need to post a VERY large bond (think 20 million) or get the City of Berkeley to join in, meaning the bond requirement is waived.

So basically, because there is no way the tree-sitters or the home owners are going to put up couple million bucks (10% of total bond) this could all be over real soon if the City of Berkeley decides not to appeal. Since Judge Miller also gave 85% of the court costs (excluding lawyer fees) to the University, the City is already facing the bitter pill of playing Cal approximately $50k-$100k. The combined costs of the additional lawyer fees for an appeal and the likely assessment of paying even MORE court costs to Cal after the appeal, in my view, will likely have the City waiving the white flag here. But that was a sentence written by a rational human being and the City has a history of defying all logic.

The even better news is that in the end, it probably won’t matter if the City of Berkeley joins the appeal. I have higher hopes than ever before that these bozos won’t even be able to find the appellate judge who will grant them an injunction. Considering just how bad of a smack down they got in the initial trial, it seems very unlikely to me. The difference here is that we’ll have to wait until August 18th to find out because they’ll have that entire time to try and find a judge who will do it.

This is all a long way of saying that, if you were planning on reserving a chain-saw at a bay area tool rental place on August 18th, you might want to get it reserved pretty soon.

(Written by kencraw)

The pre-game Storyline:
The Bears had revenge on their mind with Arizona coming to town. Arizona had thought to be on the verge of a turn-around but their season had started with a dud going 1-2 to start the seaason. Would the Cal offense be able to get back on track versus the traditionally stiff Arizona defense? Most people thought so.

The pre-game reality:
The 2006 Arizona upset was on everyone’s mind because the way Arizona plays is trouble if the opposition can’t open up a deeper passing game. With Longshore showing signs of having touch issues down the field so far this season, there was reason to be concerned. However, Arizona was looking weak again early in the season as they often do and the game was in Berkeley. A solid but not inspired Bear performance would suffice to get the win.

The key plays:

• Arizona’s first punt was all of 18 yards because of a botched angle away from DeSean Jackson, giving Cal the ball on the Arizona side of the field on their second possession of the game.
• Forsett ran back-to-back slippery runs to get the ball into the endzone from the outside the redzone and put the Bears up 7-0.
• Lavelle Hawkins was left wide open in the endzone to give Cal an easy touchdown and put them up 14-3.
• Longshore was intercepted on a poor decision early in the 2nd quarter by Cason in Cal territory. Luckily for the Bears, Hampton was able to intercept Tuitama and prevent Arizona from closing the 28-10 score.
• DeCoud intercepted Tuitama as Arizona was driving at the end of the 1st half, ending what was likely a field-goal opportunity at the end of the half.
• Syd’Quan Thompson stripped a receiver to give Cal their 4th Arizona turnover only minutes into the 2nd half.
• James Montgomery had a nice series of caries after the turnover, capped by a 3 yard touchdown run to put the Bears up 38-10 early in the 2nd quarter.
• Syd’Quan was called for a 5 yard facemask on a 4th and 1 the Bears had stopped. The drive went on to score a touchdown for Arizona to bring them back within 14, 38-24.
• Montgomery fumbled on Cal’s first drive of the 4th quarter. It gave Arizona the ball just outside the Cal redzone. Cal was able to hold Arizona to a field-goal and minimize the damage. Cal was down to an 11 point lead, 38-27.
• Cal was able to yet again effectively execute two time-killing drives in the 4th quarter to end any comeback threat.

The forgotten:

• The biggest “forgotten” is the video of the majority of the 1st quarter. Missed in that time was a solid touchdown drive by the Bears and an Arizona “drive” where an unrelenting Cal defense forced a fumble that was recovered and ran in the few yards to get a touchdown. When the video came back it was 28-3 with two minutes left in the 1st quarter.
• Mike Thomas ran a quick touchdown in to start the 2nd half off of a dump-off pass that was called back by a personal foul for hands to the face on an Arizona offensive lineman. It killed a big momentum changing opportunity for Arizona. They would have only been down 14 points with nearly a full half to play.
• James Montgomery got a lot of playing time in the 2nd half. While it was never explicitly noted, it appeared that Forsett had gotten a minor injury mid-game. He did play late in the game after Montgomery fumbled.
• Forsett’s coming back into the game after the Montgomery fumble game the Bears offense a spark that they had lacked for the last few drives. The result was the final touchdown of the game for a 45-27 margin.
• This game was a penalty fest. 14 against Cal for a 121 yards including a number of questionable personal foul calls and 8 against Arizona for 73 yards.
• After Arizona scored at the very beginning of the 4th quarter, Cal held Arizona scoreless minus the field-goal that was a direct result of the Montgomery fumble.

The post-game storyline:
The Bears were rolling and had avenged their 2006 loss. Arizona was again in trouble, now 1-3 and needing a miraculous run to get bowl eligible and save Stoops job. The Cal offense was firing on all cylinders with another score in the 40’s. The match-up in Eugene was going to be a huge test for both teams.

The post-game reality:
The reality is that this game was won in the 1st quarter and was milked out from there. The Bears were settling into be the team that defined the 1st half of the season at this point. Their offensive rhythm was good and the Bend But Don’t Break defense had found the balance that would keep opponents from lighting up the scoreboard without completely letting the opposition march down the field with nickel and dime plays.

The 2007 learnings:

• Versus’ TV coverage was not yet ready for prime-time. Hopefully by the time the Big Game came around they’d be more polished.
• Jordan Kay’s early success may have had a component of beginners luck, missing his 2nd consecutive attempt. In fairness, he did make an attempt later in the game.
• The Bend But Don’t Break offense continues to give up a lot of yards and associated time of possession. However, it continues to keep point totals down by forcing the opposition to slowly work their way down the field. This has been an effective “prevent” with Cal holding a big lead.
• Cal’s redzone defense has not been all that good. Even Arizona, who had struggled in the redzone, scored touchdowns on most of their redzone opportunities.

The 2008 implications:
What there was a lot of in this game was 3-4 defense. It was used a lot against Arizona’s spread offense. What was surprising was the amount of pressure that Cal was able to bring with creative blitzing. In this fashion, the 2007 Arizona game is the best blue-print Cal fans have as to what the 2008 defense might look like. As for Arizona in 2008, the pattern of Arizona seems to be a slow start followed by massive improvements late in the season, particularly at home where they love the November upset. This fall the Bears play in Tucson in mid-October, so one should expect to see an Arizona team that is in the process of turning the corner. Their offense should be more polished this season now having a full year of the spread under their belt and most of their talent returning. However, on defense they’ve lost a number of their best players. They might be mighty exposed this year on the one unit that traditionally is the catalyst for their big upsets.

The conclusion:
There were those who felt this was another weak performance for the Bears. I think most of those people watched the game on TV. The game looked a lot less impressive because of the partial blackout mid-1st quarter. I felt this was a pretty solid performance against a team that generally deserves more respect than it gets in Berkeley. Sure we all hate them, but that doesn’t change that they play better ball than their record indicates. All-in-all, there’s nothing in this game that I think points to the 2nd half collapse. The one real worrisome area in this game was the penalties which ironically did not play a big roll in the later collapse.

Would the Bears be good enough to finally good enough to give the Bears their first win in Eugene since 1987? Find out on Tuesday.