(Written by kencraw)

Not our Pac-10’s OSU, but the Big 12’s Oklahoma State University.

The controversy is over head coach Mike Gundy’s comments about a newspaper column at his post game interview. You can see those comments in this YouTube video. You can read the column that has him so upset at The Oklahoman, byline Jenni Carlson. This was all pretty much regional news until CBSSportsLine’s Dennis Dodd jumps in the fray with his column.

On the one hand, I like the fact that coach Gundy stood up for his players and refused to ignore what I believe to be a very childish column. Seriously, bringing up his mom feeding him after the game? That’s bad form. Write about his performance on the field. Reading a couple of Ms. Carlson’s other articles, she seems to be one of those writers who loves to act like she knows everything, has good insight and has no sense of integrity or what is appropriate to discuss about college football. I’m making a snap judgement based on 2 video articles and 3 written columns, but that’s the way it appears based on my limited exposure to her work. I suspect this was not the first column that upset coach Gundy for its crossing the line into personal attacks.

At the same time, it was childish to refuse to do a press-conference at all and spend his time berating a single writer, a slightly over-weight young woman, and tell her that “she obviously doesn’t have any children.” Does he know her well enough to know whether that may be a very painful subject for her? And if so, why is he calling her out in public instead of having a closed room meeting? If you’ve got a complaint about a writer, the right place to air those complaints is with the writer themselves or if they’re being completely unreasonable with their editor. In fact, it’s probably wise to raise the complaint to the athletic director and let them address the matter.

Nevertheless, Dodd steps into a situation he either knows too little about to speak with any authority or he is too close to the situation to speak objectively. He completely mis-characterizes the nature of the column just noting it as being critical of the team, which is a ridiculous understatement and entirely focuses on the excesses of coach Gundy’s statement.

To me this seems to be a situation where it is best for everyone’s bosses to call them into their offices and tell them to let the issue die, and by the way, don’t be so hot headed in the future. Stay away from the personal attacks next time, all of you.

(Written by kencraw)

Well, it’s not an announcement from ESPN itself, which is what I really like to hear, but it’s from an actual reporter who covers the Oregon Ducks. Those guys usually don’t say something is official unless it is:

LINK

Quote of interest: “Chris Fowler of ESPN’s College GameDay program just informed UO officials that the show will be based in Eugene this Saturday.”

(Written by kencraw)

My thoughts on re-watching game on TV:

• What was with running the ball on 3rd and 11 on that first possession? Just a “keep them honest” thing?
• Versus had their first ooops not a minute in with 3-5 seconds of black mid-broadcast.
• Although later in the game the AZ punter did a good job of punting away from DeSean, the first shank… pretty bad. It seems no matter how good the punter is they’re going to shank one if they’re instructed to punt away from DeSean all game.
• Another thing that Cal cleaned up later but didn’t do that well in the 1st quarter: Tackling. Way too many misses.
• The TV coverage didn’t give us nearly a good enough view to determine if indeed Syd’Quan blew the coverage on that long pass or whether the safety was supposed to be giving support. Syd seemed to play it like cover 2…
• That Morrah roll-out play… man I am impressed with his speed. He was 1/2 a stide short of breaking that for a TD.
• Hawkins first TD was definitely setup by over-emphasis on DeSean. He was open deep because Arizona bit on quick out by Longshore. Longshore looked it off and then saw Hawkins deep.
• I’ve reached the Technical Difficulties… do the announcers know that they’re having difficulties? (oh, now they mention it.) Nevertheless they haven’t done what a lot of announcers do which is give the details they usually give on the radio like down and distance. In fact they’re still saying things like “watch how they’re doing X”. HELLO!?! We can’t watch anything!!!
• Man… I wanted to see the roughing the passer hit on Longshore. I missed it during the game. Stinking Technical Difficulties.
• Wow, it took them 25 minutes to fix those problems. That’s unheard of. That must have been the most stressful 25 minutes in a TV trailer in the history of TV. They missed 6 1/2 minutes of game time and 14 points of Cal scoring. I can see how those who watched the TV coverage would be less positive about the outcome because those 6 minutes where the cornerstone on which the big lead was built.
• Continuing that thought, Arizona had ZERO defense while the TV was gone, but when the coverage returned they scored their lone TD until the late game comeback.
• Looks like my view of the Longshore INT was all wrong. Stevens was more crossing than running deep. Looks like the throwing lane closed faster than Longshore thought.
• And that 15 yard penalty on Cal was stupid. The defense doesn’t block the offense… it’s the other way around refs. I think he was diving (way too far away btw) to try and get at Cason’s feet.
• Mike Thomas for Arizona was fairly impressive. Yeah there were a lot of missed tackles on him but a big part of that was him getting Cal to miss. He seemed be the biggest threat against Cal particularly with the quick outs that he’d sprint up the sideline for big yards.
• It was nice to see Cal running the 2 minute offense again at the end of the 1st half. I’m sure we’re going to need to be able to run that in the 4th quarter at some point this year and it’s nice to see Cal get some experience.
• Nice to see DeCoud getting a pick… but that was a garbage pick. End of the half, AZ was desperate… but still nice to see.
• How can anyone be disappointed after a 31-10 first half? All around that was a great half. A half that reminded me of the 8 game winning streak last fall.
• Hahahaha… that halftime interview with Tedford was awesomely hilarious. The interviewer calls Tedford ‘Ted’ instead of Jeff, and then corrects himself, and Jeff doesn’t seem to like the guy to begin with. How does the interviewer make up for his transgression? He calls Tedford ‘Ted’ again as he’s walking away.
• Another area where the Versus coverage was weak was doing a replay more than once. The controversial hands to the face penalty that undid an Arizona TD was worth a second look especially since the first replay was abreviated and didn’t show the end of the play, but like every play, one replay is all we got.
• Stripped ball turnover was very good play by Cal. That’s the extra level that the defense needs: not only bend but don’t break… but also force the turnovers. That was the 4th turnover of the game.
• As I said in my podcast, the first of the offsides was definitely triggered by the center doing that extra move before he snaps the ball. We’ll see about the rest.
• As Cal went into its offensive funk, Longshore was missing his passes again… it seems Longshore really needs the pressure of a tight game to play his best.
• Versus also didn’t show Syd’Quan’s face-mask that kept Arizona drive alive after stuffed QB sneak.
• OK, I walked frame by frame through the offsides call on 4th and 6 on AZ drive inside redzone and I can say with confidence two things: 1. Center did his double-snap move again. 2. Williams was not offsides. He timed that perfectly. I’ve got the video frozen on the frame that matters right now and the ball is snapped and Williams is just on the line of scrimage… bad call by refs that cost Cal the turnover on downs (pass was incomplete).
• TD fade route was one of Syd’s worst coverages of the year, and I mean that as a compliment. He bit inside on what turned out to be a fade route and Tuitmana placed a ball in the corner where it needed to be for the TD. Syd ended up way out of position because he bit on the inside move by the WR.
• At the same time as Cal was sputtering that let AZ close the score, the defense also stepped up after the Montgomery fumble. Held AZ to a field goal.
• There’s no question about just how good Forsett is. Just as it looked like the offense was stalling, Forsett came back in and took the team on his back.
• The next referee snaffu… OK: we have a flag thrown at the line of scrimage, thrown before the QB threw the ball. Then we have a second flag thrown just after the QB threw the ball. Then we have two penalties: 1. Personal foul, in what appears to be roughing the passer, although we were never told what explicitely the personal foul was for. 2. Intentional grounding. Both of those would only be thrown after the ball was thrown, so it doesn’t account for the flag thrown at the line, particularly since there was nothing on the line that justifies a personal foul. What’s the story? I couldn’t see whether there was indeed roughing the passer, so I won’t comment, but what I do know is that there’s still a flag that was unaccounted for. And since there was a clear hold, it would have offset the personal foul.
• Continuing in our referee debacle… The personal foul for the late hit was the WOSRT CALL YET. There were four players in the tackle. The first player, #5, Syd’Quan, holds up the receiver but can’t quite get him down. #7, Peele, then come in and hits the receiver hard putting him down. It’s possible that the receiver’s knee went down before he got there but there was no whistle and it was only a brief moment before the hit. #15 comes in just behind Peele (like their bodies were overlapped on video), and basically joins the pile without hitting anyone very hard. He almost didn’t even touch the receiver being squeezed between Peele and Syd. Finally, and perhaps the lone guy who there was a remote hope of calling a late hit on, #93 comes in from the middle of the field, circles around behind the pile and lands on top of Peele and probably never touches the receiver. He may have been a moment late, although nothing egregious. That’s all well and good until the penalty is called on Peele who wasn’t even close to late. He, from what I can tell on video from a poor angle, was the guy who actually got the receiver down. Horrible, horrible call.
• Something I hadn’t noticed at the end of the game: Best got the majority of the last drive’s carries.

Some final thoughts:

The referees were every bit as bad as I thought at the end of the game. I don’t know why, but I really suspect that Stoops antics had something to do with it. That’s aggressive speculation on my part that isn’t giving the referees the benefit of the doubt, which I usually try to do, but oh well, those were horrible calls. In every single one of the final calls they did at least one thing wrong, even when I do my best to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Although I piled on in my commentary on Versus, we shouldn’t be too hard on them. They’re brand new at this and they’re a pretty high quality network. Their sailing coverage is excellent and their hockey coverage is pretty good too. They’ll get the college football sorted out. I guarantee everyone that by the Big Game, the other game on Cal’s schedule they’re going to be covering, they’ll have the kinks worked out.

Overall, after watching the game again, the Arizona comeback wasn’t as troublesome as it was to me during the game. Really, the moment that it seemed bad in the stadium was the Montgomery fumble because it setup a situation where it could have been a 7-point game. But it didn’t become a 7 point game, the defense stepped up and held Arizona to a field-goal. The penalties also made it seem like Arizona was going to make the comeback happen, but again in the end it didn’t come to pass. All of these things don’t bother me moving forward because I don’t think they reflect on how well Cal played and their potential to stick it to Oregon next week.

No, in the end, Cal executed well and the defense showed its ability to keep the spread in check. I think things look good going into Oregon next week. I don’t see Oregon repeating last year’s belly-flop, but I do think Cal should and will be favored going into the game and are likely to win in similar fashion to Tennessee.

(Written by kencraw)

Cal held their #6 ranking in the AP and leapfrogged Texas and Wisconson in the coaches poll (which is who they’d leapfrogged in the AP poll the week before) to get to #6 in that poll as well. Oregon moved up two spots to #11 in the AP poll and up one spot to #12 in the coaches poll. #6 versus #11… that’s huge. As a comparison point, in their last meeting they were ranked #16 and #11 respectively.

I haven’t heard explicit word yet but the rumor is that ESPN GameDay is going to Eugene next week for Cal’s game there. I’ll post as soon as I know for sure.

(Written by kencraw)

I’ve posted my Arizona game podcast. You can hear it over on the podcast page.

Since I do these podcast while driving home from the game I’m doing them from memory using my feeble memory skills. In addition to this meaning that I may not cover all of the topics I’m intersted in, it also means I’m liable to say some things that are just plain false. Also, sometime I make errors because I haven’t had a chance to read any of the post game articles or commentary and I don’t listen to the radio during the game. They may illuminate something that I didn’t catch in the stands. This week, I caught two errors during editing:

• This is Jordan’s 4th year as a starter, not his third.
• It turns out Forsett did have a minor injury that was why Montgomery was playing in the 3rd quarter. Of course the fumble put the end to that

I’m sure there were other minor ones but those were the glaring errors.

Finally, I know about 20-30 people are downloading the podcast each week, which is great, but I haven’t gotten significant feedback from those who have listened to my podcasts. I always want to improve and would love to hear everyones comments. For example, I added an audio intro a little while back, what do peopl think of it? This week’s podcast is a lot longer than the previous ones… is that good or bad? Is the large amount of background car noise distracting? Consider the comment section for this post the best place to answer those questions and provide feedback.

Standard Podcast [ 22:58 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

(Written by jsnell)

Despite my rain fears, it was a rain-free game in Berkeley. And it was a good one. If I felt uncomfortable after a 30-point win versus Louisiana Tech, why should I feel much better after an 18-point win over Arizona?

Maybe it’s because the game, despite a late Arizona rally, was never really that close. Cal’s offense clicked more than it has the entire year, highlighted by a 28-point outburst in the first quarter. Tedford’s play calling in that first quarter was brilliant — you could actually see Cal zig every time Arizona zagged, passing when Arizona seemed to be playing the run, and running when they played the pass. Longshore, who we have established can be streaky when it comes to passing, was on a hot streak. Justin Forsett, when he started running, ran with authority. And when he came back in the game late, after a James Montgomery fumble, he shredded the Arizona defense like a man among boys.

After you go up 28-3, and then 31-10, there’s going to be a letdown. And there was. The offense played more conservatively, and Longshore was a bit less accurate — though he wasn’t helped by some drops by his receivers. The defense softened, which (again) I can’t really fault, since they were up by three touchdowns at that point. And it’s pretty hard to defend that crazy Texas Tech-style offense, especially when they’re always in the spread due to being behind by 21. And how about that Thomas DeCoud? He was everywhere.

Here’s what I didn’t like: The turnovers. Longshore threw a couple shoulda-been-intercepted balls, plus the interception. Montgomery’s terrible fumble. I also didn’t like the stupid penalties, especially late in the game when Cal had reasserted itself. Use your head.

I also didn’t like Mike Stoops very much. He lost it a few times on the sidelines, which didn’t impress me. I really appreciated his playcalling in last year’s Cal-Arizona game, where he boldly went for it on every occasion because he knew he couldn’t win otherwise. And he won, in the game that ended up being the reason Cal didn’t go to the Rose Bowl. Ouch! But this year? Not so much. With 13 minutes to go in the game and trailing by 14, Arizona opted to kick a 32-yard field goal. I found that pretty weak, since it cut the game from two scores to… two scores. But okay, if you’re going to play the incremental-scoring, then why go for it later on 4th and 9 at the 16 when you’re down by 18 again? A field goal in that situation brings you within two scores, and yet Stoops opted to go for it. After a false start penalty, they went for it on 4th and 14.

It just doesn’t make sense, certainly not from a pure strategy perspective. Perhaps it was an emotional decision: Stoops might have figured that a touchdown to make it 45-34 would pump up his team in a way that a field goal to make it 45-30 wouldn’t. But at that point, the Wildcats needed three scores, and Stoops bypassed a short field goal. Dumb. And when they failed on 4th and 14 with four minutes left, that was the end of the game.

Short Takes: These will be really short, because I’ve got a super-early flight in the morning… All my game photos are here… Not a huge game for DeSean Jackson, but his presence caused at least one terrible punt — you’ve got to figure that punters used to kicking normally have to adjust their approach knowing he’s back there, and sometimes that simply leads to terrible kicks… My spies tell me that Versus, which televised the game, makes CSTV look like the pinnacle of broadcast excellence. Versus lost its signal for a while and aired nothing but commercials, and the main camera looked like it was mounted on the cannon on Tightwad Hill…. With the A’s on the road, AnnouncerBot 2.0 beta was reinstalled to the P.A. system, and the world yawned… The alumi section’s Mic Man today was on some severe tranquilizers. I half expected him to start reading his poetry to us. Not that I’m complaining — it was easy to tune him out… Cal is averaging 42 points per game through four games, for an average score of 42-25. Crazy! But it gets harder next week versus Oregon at Autzen Stadium. A lot harder.

(Written by jsnell)

It’s been a long time since I’ve gone to a rainy Cal game, but I think we’re going to get one today. When I missed a game in 2001 after my daughter was born, it rained, and the winless Bears got thumped by USC. Not sorry I missed that one. I recall a game a few years back when, sadly, it was sunny in Marin when we left to go to the game, but that metaphorical black cloud that hung over Cal Football for so many years turned out to be non-metaphorical and full of rain. That was a bad day.

But today? I’ll be prepared with my nice blue raincoat (I kind of wanted the green one, but what if it rains when we play Oregon? So blue it is — this explains why everything I own is blue.) and my nice blue rain pants that keep my pants warm but make me squeak when I walk. Such is the price of comfort.

Rain aside, I’m feeling pretty good about today’s matchup. Go Bears!

(Written by kencraw)

I’ve got a great story for everyone:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Written by kencraw)

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

That was the bad news.

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

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

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

(Written by kencraw)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Written by kencraw)

Are you ready for a beat-down?

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

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

I could go on and on.

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

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

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

(Written by kencraw)

Scout has their daily court hearing article up.

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

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

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

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

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

(Written by kencraw)

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

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

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

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

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

(Written by kencraw)

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

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

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

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

(Written by kencraw)

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

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

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

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

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

(Written by kencraw)

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

(Written by kencraw)

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

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

(Written by kencraw)

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

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

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

(Written by kencraw)

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

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

(Written by kencraw)

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