(Written by kencraw)

Since so few of the Cal games were picked up by the “big” networks, Cal has been aggressively courting the small ones to pick up the games. As such the WSU, Arizona and Colorado State games have been picked up, and they’re all going to be on “Comcast Sports Network – West”. That’s not to be confused with “Fox Sports Network – Bay Area” that was bought and renamed “Comcast Sports Network – Bay Area”.

This also means they have game times for these games:

• WSU: 9/6 at 3:30 PM
• Colorado State: 9/27 at 3:00 PM
• Arizona: 10/18 at 7:00 PM

The extra “good news” here is that we now have a game time for each of the road games one is likely to fly to (Oregon State is such a bad place to get by plane that it is both faster and cheaper to drive). Also, the Arizona game now being a night game means one can fly in the day of the game and fly out the next day to save on hotels and car rentals. For WSU, while the 3:30 PM flight time doesn’t really allow for either a same day arrival or departure without cutting things too close for comfort, I recommend flying straight from Pullman (well, really Spokane) to Maryland. A week in DC (or New York) can always be a lot of fun.

(Written by kencraw)

As a reminder, today is the 17th, which means our beloved UC lawyers are in court hopefully nailing the final nail in the coffin of the case against the SAHPC. I’ll post more when I hear more about what happened today. Of course, the judge is EXTREMELY unlikely to make a ruling today, so mostly it’ll just be “he said/she said” stuff, but it will provide the foundation for whatever the judge rules, whenever she rules.

(Written by kencraw)

Those of you who closely follow the blog know while I try to stick to my posting schedules, it doesn’t always come through. However, my last Friday post that said “find out tomorrow” for the next post, was unusually off the mark. Why?

Food poisoning!

I guess I should have known I was in for trouble when the place is called “Wonderful III Too!” but I didn’t. In any case, from Friday night until last night (yes 5 days) I’ve been hating life, particularly life more than about 15 feet from the restroom.

But the good news is that I’m back in action and I’ll get back to my Looking Back posts starting with reviewing the Arizona game Friday night, likely posted Saturday morning.

(Written by kencraw)

The pre-game Storyline:
After a sub-par performance the previous week, the now #8 Bears would need a better performance against Louisiana Tech to continue to get respect with the pollsters. Nevertheless, the Bulldogs were expected to be an easy team for the Bears to beat.

The pre-game reality:
Every BCS team should fear playing a solid WAC team early in the season. The WAC is by far the best non-BCS conference and the teams in it are used to playing BCS caliber opponents both in their generally strong non-conference schedules and against the best of the WAC like Boise State and more recently Hawaii. If the Bears came with another performance like they did versus Colorado State, it could be trouble.

The key plays:

• Lavelle Hawkins able to run fake reverse on kickoff to start the game for a quick touchdown to put the Bears up 7-0, 12 seconds in to the game.
• Catch and fumble by Bulldogs that was recovered by Cal was called an incomplete pass when it was clearly a catch and fumble… although no damage was done later on that drive.
• A second review on a low catch by Robert was called incorrectly, saying that the ball hit the turf on what was clearly a catch.
• Jordan Kay missed a 39 yard field-goal early in the 2nd quarter… his first miss of the year.
• Bulldog quarterback Champion let the ball slip out of his hands and the Bears were able to pounce on the ball, giving the Bears great field position at the Bulldog 25. Forsett was able to run it in from there.
• Justin Forsett runs a 39 yard touchdown weaving through the secondary, putting Cal up 21-6 (see photo above).
• Longshore forced a ball on a throw in the beginning of the 2nd quarter into the endzone giving the Bulldogs an easy interception and killing what had been the Bears best passing drive of the game.
• Brandon Hampton intercepts an under-thrown ball and runs it down to the Bulldog 17 yard-line. Cal was able to punch it in from there on a throw from Longshore to Stevens to go up 28-6.
• The Bulldogs completed a 4th and long just outside of field-goal range late in the 2nd quarter that kept the drive alive. However the resulting field-goal attempt was blocked by the Bears.
• Louisiana Tech had a nice kickoff return to the Cal side of the field after Cal had ramped up the score to 35-12. However, the defense was able to stop them there to prevent any future damage.
• The Bulldog safety missed what would have been an easy interception over the middle, but the miss distracted DeSean who was behind the defense and would have run it in for a touchdown had he not dropped the ball.
• Robert Peele intercepted a tipped ball deep in Cal territory late in the 3rd quarter killing the little bit of momentum and field position Louisiana Tech had built up in the quarter.

The forgotten:

• Noris Melele had 2 false start penalties early in the game, one on each of the first two drives. Both were instrumental in stalling those drives turning 3rd and short into 3rd and long in both cases resulting in a punt.
• DeSean fumbled a punt return trying to make a quick cut after catching it. Luckily it was recovered by the Bears.
• Neither team had scored midway through the 2nd quarter with the Cal offense shooting itself in the foot with penalties and mis-throws and the Bulldogs overwhelmed by the Cal defense.
• After Cal went up 14-0, the Bulldogs came out with determination on their drive and were able to over-power Cal’s defense en-route to a touchdown.
• Cal had 6 penalties for 50 yards in the 1st half including a personal-foul that took the Bears back to their side of the 50 with just over 30 seconds remaining, killing the chance to get a final score in before halftime. When Tedford was asked in his halftime interview about the penalties, he replied, “That’s exactly what we’re going to be talking about at halftime.”
• Louisiana Tech opened up the 2nd half with a powerful drive running the ball right at Cal and driving the full length of the field to get a touchdown.
• Justin Forsett carried the team in the 2nd half getting carry after carry to grind out the win.

The post-game storyline:
Cal was back on track winning easily against a solid WAC team. Although there were moments the offense was stalled and the defense was not completely dominating, overall it was a solid performance that is reflective of their #8 ranking.

The post-game reality:
While the win was solid, there were plenty of moments and mistakes that were troubling to Bear fans who knew the Bears would be facing much stiffer competition once Pac-10 play started. While it wasn’t consistent, one of the more troubling aspects was the times when the defensive line was manhandled by an inferior team. Also troubling was Longshore’s accuracy/touch issues on the long pass. What was not troubling was the domination of the Cal running game.

The 2007 learnings:

• Longshore’s struggles with his touch were not limited to the high altitude of Colorado, missing a few open receivers, a couple of which in succession on a key drive in the 2nd quarter.
• Jordan Kay may not be the miracle backup he seemed to be in the first couple of games, missing his first field-goal attempt.
• Jahvid Best continues to impress and has the potential to be making large contributions every week.
• The kickoff team continues to struggle with short kicks, putting the coverage team in the difficult position of having to get downfield faster than usual without over-pursuing (that risks a long return).
• Rulon Davis was injured in this game, having a stress fracture in his leg. The weak defensive line looks really weak at this point.
• Kevin Riley got his first playing time in the mid-4th quarter. He didn’t look all that sharp and it was clear that Cal’s hopes for 2007 would be pinned to Longshore if at all possible.

The 2008 implications:
Memorial Stadium is a bigger home-field advantage than most of us realize and the difference between the performance against Colorado State and Louisiana Tech reflect that home-field advantage. With two non-conference games at home there is much to be hopeful for in the non-conference schedule for 2008. Beyond that, with the Bulldogs not on the schedule for 2008 and it still being early in the season, there’s not too much to decipher from this game.

The conclusion:
My memory of this game was that the Bears had played flat again. Not as flat as against Colorado State, but still flat and not as crushing a victory as it indeed was. This game was a pretty convincing win that minus the penalties, there wasn’t too much to complain about.

Would the momentum carry over to the Pac-10 schedule? Could the Bears get revenge against Arizona for their 2006 upset of the Bears that cost Cal fans yet another shot at the Rose Bowl? Tune in tomorrow to find out.

(Written by kencraw)

The pre-game Storyline:
After getting redemption against Tennessee the now number 10 in the AP poll Bears look to roll versus a weak Colorado State. Would the high altitude and the road trip get the Bears to overlook the Rams? Most people didn’t think so.

The pre-game reality:
The Bears were clicking on offense after their game versus Tennessee and there was no reason to think that Colorado State, a team early in a slow rebuilding process as a mid-major, would be any sort of a challenge. Those who had minor concerns were concerned about the altitude affecting Longshore’s ability to have good touch on the long ball, but Cal had enough weapons both in the running game and the shorter passing game that CSU shouldn’t provide any trouble.

The key plays:

• Colorado State forced a 3-and-out on Cal’s first possession, giving them a bunch of momentum and reason to believe they could compete with the Bears.
  Reverse to DeSean Jackson the first play after CSU went up 7-0 goes for a touchdown to quickly tie up the game 7-7 and defuse the majority of the momentum the Rams had gained.
• Interception by Derrick Hill on wounded duck pass into the endzone ends a dangerous position for the Bears where they could have gone down 7-14. (Although he should have stayed in the endzone to get the ball at the 20 instead of at the 4 yard-line.)
• Colorado State given touchdown on goal-line stand when the QB clearly was stopped a couple yards short. Ties game at 14-14.
• Cal had a touchdown on a slant to Hawkins called back on a holding penalty in the mid-3rd quarter with the Bears up only 20-14.
• Linebacker Anthony Felder had a Follett-esk sack to jar loose the football and give a turnover to the Bears in CSU territory late in the 3rd quarter.
• Justin Moye intercepted the ball early in the 4th quarter just when it seemed like the CSU offense was getting back on track and gave the Bears the ball in CSU territory.
• Jahvid Best slipped through a number of would-be tacklers on a 60+ yard touchdown run to give Cal a commanding (and soon to be necessary) 20 point lead, 34-14.
• CSU throws a deep bomb with good touch to score an easy touchdown with less than 4 minutes left in the game to reduce Cal’s lead to 13, 34-21.
• CSU then converted on the on-side kick with a good bounce to make it difficult to the Cal good hands team to pull it down.
• CSU then sent another bomb down the field that although much better covered than the previous one, was still hauled down to give the Rams a 1st and goal from inside the 5 yard-line. The resulting touchdown put CSU within a touchdown, Cal up only 34-28.

The forgotten:

• Colorado State pinned Cal at their own 2-yard line for the Bears second possession after the CSU punt bounced sideways after landing inside the 5 yard-line.
• Colorado State ran the same reverse that DeSean Jackson ran their first play after Cal ran it. Although it didn’t go for a touchdown, it did get them 40+ yards down to the Cal redzone.
• Jordan Kay kicked two lengthy field-goals: A 47 yard field-goal that gave the Bears their 17-14 halftime lead and a 41 yard field-goal early in the 3rd quarter to put the Bears up 20-14. He looked really sharp… albeit at altitude in his second start and the points ended up being the margin of victory.
• DeSean fumbled a key 1st down completion that by the time he recovered it had lost the 1st down setting up 4th down.
• The Cal defense played with a completely different personality in the 2nd half, particularly against the run game, forcing frequent punts.
• Colorado State punted to DeSean on just about every punt but the Ram coverage team did a great job of corralling DeSean.
• While Longshore did do most of his passing short, he also took his shots down the field. Unfortunately his touch was off at high altitude.
• There were still 3 minutes left in the game when the lead was within a touchdown. Cal both recovered a 2nd onside kick (well, let it go out of bounds) and then was able to pound the ball to get the two 1st downs needed to grind out the clock and seal the win.

The post-game storyline:Cal escaped from Colorado with a somewhat undeserved win having played the game as a letdown game. Overall there was no reason to doubt that when the Bears came to play, they’d continue to be one of the Pac-10’s best.

The post-game reality:While it was definitely true that the Bears played a flat game, there were also a few aspects to be worried about. The offensive line play left something to be desired. The same was true of the defensive line who let a smaller CSU offensive line push them around and generate an effective run game to keep the ball out of Cal’s hands. The lack of a run game, minus a couple of big plays, was the most disturbing thing.

The 2007 learnings:

• Marcus Ezeff, getting the start in the game, was clearly going to be a force in the secondary and would get a lot of playing time going forward.
• Even at altitude, the kickoffs were barely making it into the endzone and were kicked on a pretty low line giving plenty of opportunity for a good return. That was a bad sign for kickoffs when back in the Pac-10 closer to sea-level.
• The defensive line was not getting much pressure on the CSU quarterback and didn’t seem to be performing well. If they didn’t turn it around in the next couple weeks, it could be a very long Pac-10 season as pressure on the QB is critical to keeping the opposition off the scoreboard.
• The backup secondary spots left something to be desired. Darian Hagan was burned bad for a long touchdown as was Marcus Ezeff (who although starting this game was still considered a backup at this point).

The 2008 implications:It was still awful early in the season to make too many conclusions about 2008. However, what can be said is that Colorado State should not be overlooked on the Bears schedule. Of course with the game in Berkeley the environment will be very different. Nevertheless, the Bears had better be ready for some very physical play at the line of scrimmage by both the offense and defense. CSU will also be a much more experienced team with so much youth last year now having another year under their belt.

The conclusion:Even in review, I don’t make too much of this game. Yes there were signs of what plagued the Bears later in the season, but overall the only story outside of the slow start in this game was the two late touchdowns that Cal gifted the CSU Rams. Considering that was due to young backups, it’s hard to think it was a trend in the making.

But the next game against Louisiana Tech. would be very interesting if it turned out the same way with that game at home and having already had the scare against CSU. Tune in on Wednesday for my review of that game.

(Written by kencraw)

Please forgive me an aside. Now I know after my last aside, most of you are groaning, but hear me out… this is still about sports.

I was working on updating the scripts for the pickem game so the 2008 EMFMV edition is even better and more competitive than last season. Since I like to watch sports while I code, I turned on the TV to see what was on. It was 9:30 AM and I thought, “hey, isn’t Wimbleton on at 9 AM?” Well no. It started at 9 AM eastern time. But because of rain delays and the such, they were only in the 3rd set.

Now as a bit of background, I played tennis recreationally in middle school and a bit in high school, but I’ve always thought it was as boring to watch as watching grass grow. In the case of Wimbledon, it was as boring as watching grass die from two weeks of being stomped to death.

Well, after about 15 minutes of watching, the coding for the pickem was stalled as I had to stand up to watch this incredible match. For the last 4+ hours I watched two incredible players play an unprecidentedly long and toughly fought match. It took all 5 sets including tie-breaker games in both the 3rd and 4th sets and even had to go into extra games in the 5th set.

In any case, Nadal eventually won 6-4,6-4,6-7,6-7,9-7, which was awesome because both that young kid plays with so much heart and it was so back and forth with Federer coming up with the big ace every time his back was against the wall.

If you missed it, you missed an incredible sports event. I think I might be watching more often when these two come together.

(Written by kencraw)

The pre-game Storyline:
Cal was seeking redemption from their previous year’s beating in Knoxville. With the game in Berkeley and Cal now knowing what to expect from the hard hitting SEC team that was coming to town, their high octane offense should have a chance to return the favor.

The pre-game reality:
The real story of the game was whether the Cal defense could do a better job than the previous year. Had it not been for the huge defensive mistakes that plagued Cal the previous year, the game would have been entirely difference. With a rebuilt defense, there were plenty of reasons for Cal fans to be nervous despite the high octane offense.

The key plays:

• Zack Follett forcing a fumble on Tennessee’s opening drive that was returned for a touchdown by Worrell Williams, putting the Bears up early 7-0.
• Tennessee ran the kickoff down to the Cal 24 yard-line after Cal had taken a 14-7 lead enabling Tennessee to tie it up again at 14-14.
• DeSean Jackson’s punt return for a touchdown on the Bears first punt reception of the game and season put the Bears up 21-14.
• Robert Jordan turned a busted play on 3rd and goal into a leaping touchdown towards the end of the 1st half to put the Bears back up by 7.
• Forsett’s long screen reception with less than a minute left in the half took the ball down into the Tennessee redzone.
• Tennessee’s ensuing redzone stop kept them within reach, only down 10 at halftime, 31-21.
• Cal scored a touchdown to open the 2nd half. When combined with getting the 1st score of the game off the turnover and the last score of the 1st half for 17 points to “bookend” an otherwise evenly played game.
• Cal’s goal-line stand on Tennessee’s ensuing drive, including the stop on 4th and goal, kept Cal’s lead at 17 points.
• Forsett took over, starting in the mid-4th quarter, and it was the running game that ground out the 14 point victory.

The forgotten:

• When Follett sacked Ainge and forced the fumble, Tennessee had already crossed into Cal territory. They also went onto score on their ensuing possession.
• Longshore did a quarterback sneak on 3rd and 1 from the 2-yard line to score Cal’s 2nd touchdown.
• After Cal went up 21-14 early in the 2nd quarter, both teams offenses stalled, trading punts until late in the quarter when Tennessee pushed in a touchdown to tie the game.
• Tennessee out gained Cal both through the air and on the ground in the 1st half. In fact, the Tennessee offense out-scored the Cal offense in the 1st half. The difference was the 14 points from the defense and special teams.
• Cal ‘s offense stalled for most of the 3rd quarter, giving Tennessee numerous opportunities to get the ball back. 3 times Tennessee was able to drive the field but it only resulted in 10 points.
• At the end of those 10 points, the Bears were only up by 7 points, early in the 4th quarter.
• Cal had a 1st and goal after a long time-consuming drive in the 4th quarter when Longshore was unable to pick up the snap on a quarterback sneak on 3rd and goal from the 1 yard-line. The resulting turnover didn’t affect the final result, but did keep Cal from crossing the 50-point barrier.

The post-game storyline:
The Bears got the redemption they had been seeking in a convincing win over an SEC powerhouse program. The Cal offense was everything that it was expected to be and the defense was surprisingly good against a potent SEC offense.

The post-game reality:
The reality is that this game was far more balanced than anyone wants to remember. Tennessee’s offense matched Cal’s offensive point production. The difference was the points off of the 1st quarter turnover and the punt return for a touchdown. Add in the benefits of getting the last possession of the 1st half and the first possession of the 2nd half and the bounces all went the way of Cal. Truth be told, if the game was played again the following week, it would be foolish to assume the Bears would have won again, even if it was played again in Berkeley. The defense, although playing conservatively to protect a lead, left a bit to be desired. 31 points is 31 points and that’s a lot to be giving up.

The 2007 learnings:

• Cal would have to do without their star field-goal kicker, Tom Schneider after he tore a muscle in his leg in pre-game warm-ups.
• However, Jordan Kay seemed to be filling in admirably, not missing a single kick including a medium length field-goal
• After DeSean returned his first return for a touchdown, it was pretty clear that nobody was going to consistently punt to DeSean.
• The Bend But Don’t Break defense was working as designed: It wasn’t going to force a lot of 3 and outs, but it also was going to be very effective at preventing the big comeback.
• Justin Forsett seemed to be everything he was as a backup in 2006 and looked to be a more than capable replacement for Marshawn Lynch.

The 2008 implications:
With the game being so early in the season and with so much happening over the course of the 2007 season, it’s hard to come up with many implications for next year from this game. Mostly what I saw of interest was some of the intended starters for 2008 were capable of before they got injured. Rulon Davis and Jahvid Best were particularly notable with their strong performances.

The conclusion:
Overall this game was about what I remembered it to be. The Bears played a solid game and Tennessee’s mistakes were too much for them to overcome. Nevertheless, the victory can not be taken away from the Bears because they played with heart and determination. This game meant a lot to them.

(Written by kencraw)

It was the worst of times, it was the best of times… or is it the other way around?

2007 was definitely a season that toyed with the hearts of all Bear fans. It’s been 10 months since last season began and it feels like 3 years have past since Tennessee came to town. So to set the scene here’s a recap of where we were just before the 2007 season began.

The 2006 season had been a meaningful redemption from the 2005 season. Nevertheless there was a bit of a bad taste in the mouth of Bear fans because they were denied a Rose Bowl beth yet again. Unlike 2004, in 2006 it was the short-comings of the teams itself that had held the Bears out of the Rose Bowl. Their collapse against Arizona left them one victory short of what is needed to get an at large berth to a BCS game and their subsequent loss to USC left them a tie-breaker short of winning the Pac-10 outright and the associated prize of a Rose Bowl. Nevertheless a 10-3 season doesn’t come along every day.

The big loss in the off-season was junior Marshawn Lynch who decided that the NFL was the best choice for him. It was the 2nd year in a row that the Bears had lost a Junior to the draft and nobody was a bit surprised. With the exception of Lynch, almost the entire offense was coming back. With Justin Forsett returning at tailback, a player who had filled in admirably when Marshawn was injured during the previous two seasons, everyone expected 2007 to be a banner year offensively. The list of offensive talent was remarkable:

Nate Longshore was coming off his breakout season in 2006. His generally mistake-free play coupled with his good decision making skills and good touch on long passes made him the Pac-10’s most impressive quarterback coming into 2007. The trio of receivers Longshore had to throw to were also remarkable and probably the best trio in the nation. With DeSean Jackson’s amazing speed and fluid route running coupled with Lavelle Hawkins ability to pull-down the tough passes over the middle it was easy to forget just how good Robert Jordan was if it wasn’t for his record setting consecutive games with a catch record. Add in stud Craig Stevens at tight-end and Justin Forsett at tailback and this was an extremely talented offense at the skill positions. Not to be forgotten was the experienced offensive line that was anchored by Alex Mack that was 2nd only to the 2005 team in its promise of keeping Longshore grass-stain free and give Forsett the holes he needed to explode into the secondary.

If there was a weakness coming into 2007 it was the defense. All-American corner Damien Hughes was off to the NFL after graduation as was Desmond Bishop and Brandon Mebane. Cal would need SydQuan Thompson to continue his strong play late in 2006 as well as have Brandon Hampton smoothly make the transition from safety to cornerback. They would also need Worrell Williams to fill Bishop’s shoes and for Zack Follet to find the consistency he needed to live up to his promise as an outside linebacker. Finally the Bears would need to rebuild it’s defensive line. With a number of candidates to fill the holes left behind including former military man Rulon Davis there was a great deal of hope that this too could be done.

If the Bears could at least play respectably on defense, and it seemed it had enough tools to pull that off, the offense should be able to lift the Bears to glory. Particularly with USC looking vulnerable yet again in 2007, it seemed that the Bears had the potential to make another run at the Pac-10 title and that elusive Rose Bowl. Adding to the anticipation, Bear fans would find out just how realistic those asperations from Day 1 when Tennessee, the team that had destroyed the Bears in Knoxville the previous year, came to Berkeley to open the season. Tune in tomorrow to see my analysis on Tennessee.

(Written by kencraw)

For those who followed my series on the 2005 season, I’m about to do the same thing for the 2007 season. But I figure since I’d be jumping over 2006 I’d post links to all of my ‘looking-back’ posts on 2006 from the old Cal blog to give the more thorough fans an oppotunity to have a bridge between the two seasons:

• Cal at Tennessee
• Minnesota at Cal
• Portland State at Cal
• Arizona State at Cal
• Cal at Oregon State
• Oregon at Cal
• Cal at Washington State
• Washington at Cal
• UCLA at Cal
• Cal at Arizona
• Cal at USC
• Stanford at Cal
• Holiday Bowl vs. Texas A&M

The other reason to review this as the format will more closely follow the format of the 2007 review I’m about to undertake.

(Written by kencraw)

First a quick apology on the lack of coverage for the last week or two. There has been tons going on that I’ve wanted to post on but life and the stomack flu got in the way.

So, to quickly wrap up the happenings that I missed:

1. On June 24th the tree-sitters, the PHA (NIMBY homeowners) and the City of Berkeley (COB) submitted their proposed language for the judgement on the ruling judge Miller released. Their language was basically what I predicted in that it called for the project to be halted if the most strick interpretation of her ruling was not followed. They basically stated that they believe the stadium to be worthless, so the bar to clear there is too high for continuation of the project, and the additional events in the EIR require that the University go back to public comment and a whole new EIR.
2. On June 27th the University responded with their filing. This is where all the action was. The University clearly had been doing a lot of behind the scenes work long before the ruling came out. First, they submitted a change to the project, removing the grade-beam and the rest of the minor changes to Memorial Stadium from the project. They submitted a bunch of signed statements from the engineers and architects showing how the changes to the project would not affect the structural integrity of the stadium but would merely lead to some cosmetic cracking. Second, they removed the additional events from the EIR since they’re not relevant to the SAHPC. Finally they filed a long brief on why the injunction should be lifted ASAP. They gave detailed numbers on how much every day of delay costs as well as clearly explaining how the filings submitted clearly show that the University has fully complied with the Judge’s ruling.
3. On July 1st the judge held a hearing to determine the date for the hearing that would give both sides a final opportunity to argue their case for what the final language of the judgement should be. At that hearing the plaintiffs (i.e. the other side) were arguing for a long delay stating that they haven’t had time to review the massive filings that the University gave on June 27th and that they’d need until at least mid-August when accounting for planned vacations and the such. The University re-iterated the importance of each day’s delay and the Judge was fairly accomodating setting a date for July 17th, 5 days earlier than originally planned on July 22nd.
4. Back at the bat-cave… er… sacred grove… er… whatever, the standoff between the University and the tree-sitters continues. The University stuck to their promise to prevent the tree-sitters from being re-supplied. The “ground team” tried day after day to re-supply and each time were turned back by the University. Their cries about starvation were responded to by the University by saying “they still seem to have plenty of food”. After about a week, the tree-sitters fully exhausted their supplies and the University agreed to give water and energy bars to the tree-sitters to avoid the criticism of starvation. Since that time a number of the tree-sitters have come down including the now infamous Dumpster Muffin. Most who came down were complaining of various minor medical ailments. In any case, the University’s policy of making life intolerable for the tree-sitters seems to be bearing fruit in the last week as the count of tree-sitters is down from 12 to somewhere in the 5 range at last count.

So for those who haven’t been following it, as the above summary shows, overall the last couple of weeks have been very postive for Bear fans. It seems that victory is in our grasp and that much of the very worried commentary in the most recent EMFMV podcast was potentially over-blown.

The hearing on the 17th will probably boil down to objections over the grade-beam that was removed from Memorial Stadium on two fronts. First, it will be argued that the University’s submissions over the structural safety of the project without the grade-beam are inaccurate. The plaintiffs will first make a brief argument as to why this is the case and likely try to present some expert evidence of some sort. They’ll also argue that they didn’t have sufficient time to do the proper analysis and ask for lots more time before having an additional multi-day hearing on why the grade-beam is an important safety aspect of the project.

The plaintiffs have used this argument once before with great success. When the original hearing wrapped up in late October that gave Judge Miller until mid-January to rule on the case. However in mid-December she sent out a request for more information on one of the issues addressed in the original hearing and set a date of early January to hear that additional evidence. The plaintiffs successfully argued for a massive delay until mid-March. That single issue cost the University not just the two months, but fully 5 months because it reset the timer on the deadline for the ruling allowing Judge Miller to release the ruling in mid-June instead of the orignal mid-January. While it seems from the July 1st hearing that the judge’s patience for the excessive delays has worn thin, I think this is still a matter to be mildly concerned about.

The second front the plaintiffs will try to attack is that these changes to the project, particularly the grade-beam, really invalidates the previous EIR and this new EIR without the grade-beam needs to be recirculated for public comment and re-approved. They’ll try the same tactic with the ‘eliminate the increased events’ change but I suspect that since it’s a return to staus-quo it’ll be much more difficult to argue that an EIR needs to be recirculated to say ‘all of this will stay the same’. The grade-beam however will be their better aspect to argue because of the many aspect that might have been commented on had this originally been part of the project, everything from ‘how can you allow cracks in this historical stadium’ to ‘I fear for my safety’ concerns. All of that said, it is my opinion that the plantiffs will not have any success in regards to recirculating the EIR.

So it all comes down to whether the plaintiffs can find a compelling enough expert witness to say that the grade-beam is structurally important for the safety of the stadium. If they can, they might be able to get that big delay they’re looking for. Since their ability to come up with expert witnesses has been pretty limited minus busting out a dictionary to rebutting what the state code means by ‘addition’, there is reason to be hopeful that sometime shortly after July 17th there will be a chainsaw work party.

And for a donation of only $1000 to the Bear Backer fund, you can have your wood bench seat upgraded to locally-grown (and hence environmentally friendly), freshly cut Oak! If you want redwood for a longer lasting bench, since that is in shorter supply, it will only be available to coach’s club level donors and higher.

Before we start celebrating, there is something important to remember:

The appeal.

My opinion on this still stands the same as it did in mid-April. It all comes down to two things:

1. Does the City of Berkeley join the appeal (so no bond has to be posted)
2. Does the appellate judge grant an injunction

The city of Berkeley (COB) seems to be more and more accepting their fate that they can’t win this case and already feels they’ve sunk too much money into this. While I don’t put it past them to join the appeal just out of spite, heck they joined the original case out of spite since the University was willing to make most of the concessions that the city wanted, it seems less and less likely that occurs particularly now that the University dumped the doubling of events at the stadium. If that’s the case, there’s no way the project would be halted after a successful resolution of the existing case. The PHA is not going to post a $20 million dollar bond on this and the tree-sitters would have trouble posting a $20 bond, forget the six extra zeros.

If for some reason the COB does join in on the appeal, I’m feeling more and more confident that the judge won’t give an injunction. To be clear, the judge will likely give a very short injunction so that they can hear arguments for why a longer injunction should be put in place. At that hearing the plaintiffs will yet again have difficulty arguing their points and with so little to go on the judge will refuse to grant the injunction.

So, looking into my crystal ball, it plays out approximately like this:

• July 17th: Hearing on judgement
• Approx. July 30th: Judge Miller releases judgement in University’s favor and lifts injunction
• July 31st: Appeal is filed with request for immediate injunction
• August 1st: temporary injunction granted with a hearing set for mid-August
• Approx. August 15th: Without COB support or any good arguments, injunction is refused
• August 16th: last tree-sitters removed and trees cut down

One final note on the tree-sitters. I’ve always commented that their protest is pretty ridiculous because there has been an injunction in place preventing the trees from being cut down. In other words, they’re not accomplishing anything. Well, I will give them one thing. When an injunction is lifted they do buy the COB and others a few extra days to file legal documents and find a judge who will put a new injunction in place. Without them, the University could be cutting tree within a day. With them, it’ll take them at least a day, if not two, to get them out before the cutting could begin.

(Written by jsnell)

So what if it’s 66 days (we counted) until the first Cal game of this season? That didn’t stop Ken from predicting every game and every score, and it doesn’t stop us from yammering on and on about the forthcoming season — as well as the recent Stadium project court ruling — in this three-man Excuse Me for My Voice podcast.

In this episode, Ken Crawford, Jason Snell, and Philip Michaels sit in a room and figure out how to do a podcast together. The good news: We figured it out. The bad news: We recorded a whole podcast before we figured it out. Enjoy!

2008 Season Preview: 66 Days to Go Edition [ 30:52 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

(Written by kencraw)

Each year I do my best to predict the score of each game for the upcoming season after Spring Practice wraps up. This year it has taken me a long time to decide how to go about it because there are more question marks about the team than any year since the beginning of the Tedford era. To resolve that, I’ve had to make a couple of assumptions:

The #1 assumption is regarding the quarterback. I really have no idea who is going to start. The way I have resolved this is to assume a “level of play” out of the quarterback. The level I have assumed is the play of Longshore pre-injury in 2007 and Riley in the bowl game. I believe these two levels of play to be about the same. There is a significant mobility difference, but since Tedford tends not to modify his game-plan for who is at QB, I suspect the difference will be minimal in the end.

The #2 assumption is that the running back situation is going to be about the same as with Forsett in the backfield. In many ways I believe this is selling the team short as the combination of Best, Vereen, Slocum and perhaps Deboskie will likely result in a 1-2 punch (if not 1-2-3 punch) that is stronger than what Forsett provided. In the end I think it balances out because I may be over-selling the quarterback situation.

The rest of the team’s starters are predictable enough that my job is to figure out not who will start but how those starters will perform against a bunch of teams that are themselves in flux.

Cal 41, Michigan State 27:
On paper, MSU looks to be a formidable opponent. Early pre-season polls have them ranked in the high teens to low twenties. 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 team because of their noble effort, albeit a loss, in their bowl game versus Boston College. 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.

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.

Maryland 10, Cal 45:
Maryland is a very young team going into 2008. Their presumptive 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.

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.

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 needs a whole different word for their weakness). 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.

Arizona 27, Cal 21:
Normally I would say that Cal getting Arizona before November is a good thing. However, I think this is the year that Arizona breaks through from sub-mediocrity to enter the game versus Cal 4-2, losing only to UCLA and one of Washington and Stanford. Arizona will be desperate to get back on track versus the Bears to put them only one game from bowl eligibility before getting to the meat of their schedule. As much as I hate 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.

Cal 49, UCLA 27:
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.

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.

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.

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 3:
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. With the ‘new coach’ and ‘we beat USC’ mojo long since faded from memory, Cal wins this one in a walk similar to the previous Tedford Big Games. 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.

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 may just have the nation’s toughest schedule two years in a row with non-conference games against Notre Dame, Oklahoma and BYU. 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.

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.

Expect to see an update of these predictions at the end of Fall practice.

(Written by kencraw)

‘The Duke’ asks in the comment section for my prediction on when the University will be able to break ground now that the ruling has come down and been analyzed. I could just do the Oregon game thing and say ’31-24 Bears’ relying on my keen instinct and prediction skills. (Of course the appropriate response would be ‘Cal 24, UCLA 13’, but I digress.) But in this case my crystal ball is pretty murky so instead I’ll give a more nuanced answer.

In the end it all comes down to three things:

1. How quickly judge Miller rules on the Writ
2. Whether the Writ includes a recirculation or re-approval of the EIR
3. Whether the injunction is maintained upon appeal

Judge Miller will have all of the paperwork she need to rule on the Writ before the end of the month. That’s the best news there is. Unfortunately, she gets up to 60 days to actually finalize and publish the Writ. Now, I don’t know about you, but it’s going to take a LOT for me to fall for the “Oh, but we expect the judge to rule far more quickly than the deadline” mantra again. Somehow releasing the ruling at 6:30 PM on the day of the deadline doesn’t feel ‘early’ to me… but that’s just me.

So I’d say the path that allows for the earliest ground breaking is the end of August. That assumes that judge Miller rules in Cal’s favor so that no recirculation or re-approval of the EIR is necessary and the judge who hears the appeal that is an absolute certainty refuses to re-institute the injunction.

In mid-April I wrote about the likelihood that the injuction will be lifted. I believe that logic to still be accurate. However, I believe the likelihood that the judge rules in a way that causes a significant delay is much lower now, say 25%, bringing the likelihood of the project being further delayed beyond August down to 38.75%.

So, the best way to say this is:

“When football season starts we will have either just broke ground (62.25%) or we will have found out that we’ll be spending the off-season in the spring of 2009 discussing how long this appeal is going to take (38.75%).”

And since I’m making predictions… Cal 41, Michigan State 27. (More of that to come later this week.)

(Written by kencraw)

After I wrote my court ruling blog post I re-edited it up, added a few more details and then submitted to the Rivals gang to be published there:

What The Ruling Means

In this case the information in it is nearly identical to what I wrote in the blog post (I work very hard not to do that most of the time so that I’m actually providing value to the subscribers that they can’t just get for free here), so you won’t gain much in the way of new knowledge by reading it. What I find more interesting about it is the difference in how one writes an article and a blog post. A side-by-side comparison shows all kinds of little differences (all personal references are gone, reduced use of sarcasm and derision, etc.) that I made so that the content would be appropriate for an article.

If you’re interested in that it might be worth a look. (No subscription required to read this article)

(Written by kencraw)

I’m not going to worry about the 5 PM and 6 PM news coverage (which was horrible in the rush) but what is available this morning:

KTVU: C- (Did alright minus grossly exagerating the EIR short-comings in one spot the middle)
KPIX: B (No glaring errors but refused to state any facts, just what both sides were saying)
KGO-TV: B- (No glaring errors but not equal time for both sides, although the previous night’s video is far better. I’d give that video a B+.)
NBC11: F (video is from before the ruling)
KRON: D (No later update after 6:30 PM (at least on the web) and that one was entirely one-sided)
KCBS: C+ (Starts with the tree-sitter side and only “rebuts” it with University side)
KGO: A- (Very balanced. Starts with the facts and then puts protestors as sidebar)
SFGate: B+ (Reasonable balanced with enough details to make it clear what is going to happen)
CC Times: A+ (On headline alone “Judge rules in UC Berkeley’s favor” but it also has the real details)
Daily Cal: B+ (Generally strong but over quotes the PHA rep. and her bogus arguments)
Oakland Tribune: A+ (same article as CC Times)

For what it’s worth, a couple of reports indicated that they’ve managed to force the tree-sitters into one redwood tree, which is really good news. The bad news is that Dumpster Muffin has a death wish. I work with wood a lot and the problem is that it breaks down relatively quickly. If she keeps shaking that platform, it’s only a matter of time before it structurally collapses. I pray to God (quite literally) that she comes to her senses and stops this suicidal activity.

(Written by kencraw)

In my previous post I focused pretty much solely on the ruling itself and ignored the “controversy” over both sides declaring victory and particularly that the very first news reports reported it as a huge and DECISIVE victory for the tree-sitters.

What I have a very hard time getting my head around is how people can be as disingenuous as they clearly are. I mean, I understand how the news media, particularly when they’re rushing to get something on the 5:00 news doesn’t do the due-diligence to understand what the ruling says before reporting on it. I even understand how the protestor crowd who was celebrating could not understand the all the details of the ruling and just understood “the injunction is still in place”.

But what I don’t get is statements like this from Stephen Volker:

“We are ecstatic,” said Stephan Volker, attorney for the California Oak Foundation, which sued the university two years ago. “We believe this project is now dead.”

Say WHAT!?!

I mean, this guy is a lawyer. He KNOWS (or should) that the project is in NO WAY dead. Even if my analysis is correct and they’re going to try and show that Memorial stadium is value-less and they believe victory is theirs once they prove that, that hasn’t happened yet. At a minimum he needs to put in some future tense in his statement like “this ruling allows us to kill this project”.

Going beyond the being disingenuous, perhaps even with himself, I further loved his victory statement:

“The university’s petty provocations are no match for the rule of law.”

I can’t help but snicker at that one. There was page after page after page after page in that ruling where the judge said, in legal terms, that the ‘petty provocations’ came from Volker. With just about every instance the judge said his legal arguments were pretty ridiculous. The difference is that in a legal document you don’t say “that’s stupid, you numbskull!” you instead say “legal precedence X made it clear that the court did not have to consider Y” or something like that.

Today starts where the tree-sitters pick up their disingenuous tactics. They’ve of course got a long history of it. Lying about what the cops and the University are doing. Purposefully provoking an incident and then claiming they were attacked. Lying through their teeth about the nature of the grove claiming it is whatever they think will sway public opinion (native burial ground, old growth, WWI memorial, etc.).

I’ll go on record and predict that they meme they’ll be using starting today will be along the lines of “The University lost in court and is directly violating the judge’s order by (doing whatever they’re upset about).” Yesterday I can forgive them for thinking they’ve won. I don’t expect them to understand the legal nuances in such short order particularly when they’ve got a lawyer who is disingenuous.

Today they’ve got no such excuse.

(Written by kencraw)

Well, I’ve finally read the whole thing thoroughly. Here are my thoughts:

Alquist-Priolo: (AP)

The court ruled that the University is subject to the AP as just about everyone expected. This is no big deal in the end because the University’s plans/case did not rely on ruling that way. However, what occured to me is the PR aspects of this. This sounds like a big victory for the City of Berkeley and the tree-sitters. Particularly since this is the first thing discussed in the ruling and takes a bunch of pages, for the weak of heart who aren’t willing to read the whole thing, all they’ll ever see is the court focusing on the COB being right. While in the end I think it’ll all come out in the wash, it was probably a poor decision to advance this argument by the University because it allows the COB an avenue to claim a major victory.

The good news is that all the stuff that was actually meaningfully debated in court went the way of the University including that the stadium and the SAHPC are separate structures. The one fly in the ointment was that, and this was even admitted by the University in court, there were a few very minor alterations to the stadium as part of the SAHPC:

1. A Grade Beam to be installed along base of the Stadium’s west wall.
2. Alterations to existing staircases
3. Holes in the foundation for wiring

What this means is that the AP is triggered for these alterations and therefore the University must do the math/work to show that the improvements are less than 50% of the value of the stadium. This means getting the court to approve a value for the stadium and getting cost estimates for the alterations. The alterations will be pretty cheap, so there’s no issue there. The issue is what Memorial is worth.

There’s been a lot of discussion regarding this on a number of forums overnight and what has been pointed out is that if the COB can prove that the value of the stadium is very low, then that becomes a problem. The way they do that is to use a “depreciation method” where you take the cost of construction and then depreciate the value of the structure for each year it was used. Since Memorial has been around and used forever, Viola!, it’s worth $0. Of course the University contends that a “replacement value” should instead be used. This of course would result in a very high value because construction costs are so high these days.

What doesn’t seem to be discussed in all these places is that on page 35 of the ruling, the judge states what she thinks is the right way to value the stadium:

“(the cost of replacing the existing improvements [commentary: which means the structure and not the land] less whatever depreciation or obsolescence the improvements have suffered) may be more likely to serve the purposes of the Alquist-Priolo”

That to me sounds about right. She’s saying, look, if you build this thing from scratch, you’re going to have a building that is worth more than the old one. The lack of chips and cracks and the longer period of time it will be before aspects of it (like wood seats) have to be replaced make it worth more. So, while replacement value is a good starting point (and that’s the key), you have to reduce the value by a bit to take into account the fact that the building isn’t brand new.

And the key as stated above is that you get to start with replacement cost. I’m sorry, the depreciation because it’s not new is NOT going to devalue the building to the degree that the 3 items listed above couldn’t be done nor “phase 2” the retrofitting of the west side. (And “phase 3” has always been in doubt and is less critical.)

So to summarize, all that the University needs to do is get a reasonable valuation of the stadium, by the judge’s own proposed method, and everything is in compliance for the AP.

California Environmental Quality Act: (CEQA)

The thing to note here is just how many things went the University’s way:

• The Regents were allowed to have the EIR reviewed by a sub-committee
• The Regents did not prematurely approve the EIR
• The University did not need to recirculate the EIR with the late breaking siesmic reports
• The EIR did properly analyze the impact of removing the trees (suck on that one tree-sitters!)
• The EIR did properly analyze the impact of potential native burial plots (it’s sucking time Mr. RunningWimp!)
• The EIR’s project description was sufficiently detailed
• The EIR did properly analyze the impact of the geological and seismic impacts
• The project will not worsen emergency access to the Panoramic Hills neighborhood (yeah, you rich snobby home-owners get to do your sucking too!)
• The project doesn’t violate the 2020 LRDP EIR’s requirement for mitigationg impacts to “cultural resources”
• The EIR was reasonable to join all of the projects together instead of having a separate EIR calling out the SAHPC’s purpose and impact.
• The EIR addressed the necessary project alternative sites and scopes.
• The proposed lighting does not harm the historical character of Memorial stadium

Item after item went the way of the University. Every ridiculous claim was rebutted. While I am a bit harsh on the University for advancing a singular agressive claim (AP is not applicable to the University), the COB and their cohorts advanced one ridiculous claim after another and the court shot all of them down.

The one surprising little note towards the end of it all was the court was rejecting the EIR’s statement that the additional impacts from doubling the number of events at the stadium was unavoidable because there was nothing in the EIR that showed why doubling the number of events was unavoidable. However, what the court did NOT do is say what the implications of their conclusion was, which leaves me scratching my head as to what the University will have to do to rectify the situation.

The ruling then wraps up saying that based on all of the above, a ‘Writ of Mandate’ will be issued. To the best of my knowledge the ‘Writ’ is the statement of what explicitely will have to be done to rectify the problems in the EIR (and perhaps the AP valuation as well). The judge gave the COB and cohorts until June 24th to propose the ‘Writ’ and until the 27th for the University to respond.

So, what this means to me is that the COB is going to write a proposed writ that says something along the lines of “AH! MY GOD! If the doubling of the events in the Stadium is not UNAVOIDABLE, then this whole project is completely bogus and you should halt it NOW! NOW! NOW! And if you won’t do that, at a very minimum, the EIR is FOUNDATIONALLY inaccurate and therefore the University has to redo the WHOLE thing and re-submit it for public comment AND get it reapproved by the Regents. Furthermore, the stadium should be for sale at the $0.99 store and therefore the alterations will well exceed the value of the stadium and you MUST, MUST, MUST halt the SAHPC on the AP’s 50% rule.”

The University will respond with “Ummm, why don’t we just change the word ‘unavoidable’ to the phrase ‘desireable in the context of the proposed project’, no recirculation and no re-approval necessary. Oh and the stadium is obviously worth hundreds of millions and the alterations won’t even cost one million, so we’re cool on the AP.”

But the fly in the ointment is that this whole discussion/process will have to happen and the judge will have to rule on these things and she could end up taking a very long time again (she’s shown a tendency to do that after all). While all of that is happening, the injunction is still in place and the ‘End of Bancroft Zoo’ is still open for business.

In that sense, that’s why the ruling was a victory for the tree-sitters. All of the activities I live blogged, were likely for not. It’s going to take weeks if not months to get this all cleared up. The University is not going to want to have to have round-the-clock security while that is happening to prevent the tree-sitters from re-entering the trees and so they’re not going to remove them from the trees until this is all resolved. Of course, in the intervening time, the tree-sitters will rebuild all of their platforms and rope bridges and everything that was just taken down. They’ll force the University to go through the same shenanigans when the final approval is pounded out.

However, that HUGE grain of salt notwithstanding, this was a victory for the Bears. There’s nothing in this ruling that is not resolvable. It’s just going to take a bit more time. I have a hard time believing the judge is going to require a recirculation, particularly considering how she ruled regarding the COB’s objections regarding late changes to the EIR that did not get recirculated. So I think we’re talking on the order of weeks and that before the season starts, the injuction will be lifted.

I’ll let you decide if that’s good enough to call this a victory.

(Written by jsnell)

UC Berkeley says the ruling is a “major victory.”

The oak people “are ecstatic” and “believe this project is now dead.”

Who do you believe? I’ve read most of the ruling and it sure sounds like the university has won most of the major points. However, it may take time for Cal to amend the plans for the SAHPC, and of course as soon as they do there will probably be more court shenanigans.

So for me, to sum it up: The university has won more than it lost, but it’s not a complete victory, and at this point any delay is a victory for the anti-stadium crusaders.

I do hope this means they can start cutting down trees, though. Because I am an evil tree-hater. Who rides the bus.

(Written by jsnell)

Frustrated by the terrible Java image-viewer provided by the County of Alameda, I’ve ripped out all the TIFF images and made a PDF for easy viewing.

Stadium Ruling PDF

(Updated to include OCRed text for searchability.)

(Written by kencraw)

(Starting at 10:00 AM)

So far no ruling. Nobody knows when to expect that it appears. I thought it would be posted first thing in the morning. It is not on the Alameda County court case webpage yet. I’ve also checked just about every news source I can think of: BearInsider, CalBears.com, SF Chron, CC Times, KCBS, KGO, KTVU, KGO-TV, KPIX, NBC11 and a bunch of blogs. So far all of the coverage, and it is substantial, just surrounds the activities at the grove and the tree sitters.

UPDATE as of 11:00 AM:

For the record, here are the latest news links, KTVU video, KGO-TV (two good videos), KPIX video, NBC11 article, KGO audio, KCBS article and podcast and SF Chronicle. Still no signs of a ruling. Word on the street is that it will be faxed to the lawyers. I’m sure it’ll be an hour or two between when they get it and when the first word of what it says leaks to the public (they need to read it first).

UPDATE as of 11:15 AM:

I haven’t been monitoring the Daily Cal this morning until now. Here is their latest article from last night.

UPDATE as of 11:45 AM:

The YouTuber bcitizen has posted a new video. In addition to the usual ramblings, it has video of the actual extraction of the tree-sitter and associated screaming.

UPDATE as of 1:30 PM:

Still nothing. We’re all waiting. I can’t understand how this wouldn’t have been released at 8:00 AM this morning. Is the judge really still working on this? Does it take the courts half a day to push send on a fax machine? What’s the story!?!

I’ll post as soon as I know anything.

UPDATE as of 3:30 PM:

Well, still no ruling, but there has been one notable update to come out of the media around a midday incident. The tree-sitters have built what looks like a new platform well above the tree-line that they’re calling the “God pod” and looks like a crud crows-nest in an old ship well above the sails. My guess is that it was done overnight. In any case, the point of this platform is to put the tree-sitter in a precarious position where any attempt to either compromise the platform or to remove the tree-sitter will likely result in a VERY long fall. There’s no other branches or ropes or anything to prevent a disasterous collapse/fall. With the arborists working in the vacinity the tree-sitter got very aggitated and started vigorously shaking her little platform. It’s a “no lose” situation for her. If it collapses, she can attempt blame her fall on them getting to close. It’s a bit like holding a gun to one’s head and saying “don’t come any closer”. Here is some video of the incident: KTVU has weak footage. ABC’s video has a better angle.

UPDATE as of 3:45 PM:

A small note, CBS says the expect the ruling “before 5:00 PM”. It’s not exactly coming from a very authoritative source (not being the judge or the courthouse), but at least something to keep our weakening hopes, as the day drags on, alive.

UPDATE as of 5:00 PM:

Still no word… the Alameda County Courthouse website has been brought to its knees. One can only assume that’s from all of us Bear fans.

UPDATE as of 5:30 PM:

Word on the street is that the University will be having a press conference at… take your finger off the big red button Mr. President… 7:00 PM tonight. The webpage for the court case has not been updated and it’s now well after closing hours for them, so I fully expect that IF we hear word today, it’s going to be via the University or the tree-sitter supporters. My guess is that we’ll hear from the tree-sitters first if the University really is going to wait until a press conference to say anything. The bad news there is the quality of the information received will be less than reliable.

UPDATE as of 6:30 PM:

The ruling has been released and it looks like it is a mixed decision, which means it is a loss as far as I’m concerned. I’m reading it and will post more shortly.

UPDATE as of 7:00 PM:

OK. It is indeed a mixed decision, but the VAST majority of it is favorable to Cal. I don’t know what this all means yet, but it seems like it will mean some sort of a delay, potentially a short one (although this is very unclear to me at this juncture) while Cal goes through the process of correcting the errors and getting the court to sign off on them. The big question, one I don’t have an answer to yet, is whether it will have to go through public comment again and whether the Regents will have to re-approve it. Those are the two things that would turn a short delay into a long delay.

I will post a detailed analysis later tonight.