DBD 8.4.08 Just Set And Forget The Weekend DBD : Article on Justin Forsett

welcome to CGB, bearsglory. take a look around, get to know what we’re all about.

tell, you what, let’s turn this bad boy into a weekend Daily Bear Dump.

i’ll get this dump started with a link to SBN’s newest blog, House of Sparky, which will be covering the ASU Sun Devils. As we get closer to Homecoming this year, be sure to check them out!

and things change in the last two minutes. i am not a fan of this change.

JOHN FUCKING BOOTY

I’m beginning to hate that guy.

I’m familiar with most of the words in that quote, but in that order they make no sense.

Who is Cann Inmann? Never heard of the guy.

Here’s a great article on Mack.

BERKELEY — If Alex Mack had played volleyball, or maybe was a top-notch surfer, perhaps more major colleges would have come calling. But growing up in coastal Santa Barbara doesn’t exactly put you in the middle of the football recruiting map.

So it was that this future All-American center didn’t garner much attention from NCAA Division I schools coming out of San Marcos High School. That’s just fine with Cal, which scooped Mack up during the summer of 2003 and has been reaping the benefits ever since.

Mack, who begins his final training camp with the Bears today as perhaps the top college center in the country, has made observers wonder why Division I suitors weren’t flooding his voicemail when he was at San Marcos. Mack is on the watch list for three postseason awards and figures to be as high as a second-round pick in next spring’s NFL draft.

Cam Inman = Olsonist?

I respect his (Inman’s) opinion that Riley should start, but he’s gotta come up with a more convincing argument than merely the team needs to distance themselves from 2007 by changing faces (QBs), that Riley won the bowl game while forgetting about all the other factors, as well as the very simplistic answer that Longshore throws game ending INTs while forgetting all the game winning TDs Longshore has thrown too. Sort of a weak article, IMO. Better arguments might be: Riley’s mobility influences the defense into a more conservative stance, Riley has more risk and reward…. stuff like that.

Longshore should, and will, start every game (barring injury). I’ll put money on it.

I was reading somewhere about an appeals attorney saying you can spot the frivolous appeals by how many “issues” there are. If there are many, many issues then, basically, the trial case was a real loser and the appellants are just throwing everything back up and hoping. If there is 1 or 2 key issue, then maybe it is appeallable.

Reading through the Petition briefly, Volker basically says EVERYTHING all over again. Every issue. So, hopefully, thatll show the desperation.

Also, his argument as to the “irreperable harm” to the appellants and minimal harm to the Respondent is a pretty big loser.

Reading through it in more detail. Most specifically about the injunction:

1. I’m reading their “We’re gonna win on the merits” section and what’s funny to me is that they bring up a LOT! of different aspects where they are, of course, going to win. Nearly every section starts with “The trial court held and the respondents will argue that” and then explains where the appellants lost at the lower level. For like 10 different issues. They really are desperate here.

2. They have patently wrong statements in here like “The record clearly shows that the Athletic Center as a whole is an addition or alteration to the Stadium.”

3. A lot of the complaints are that the Regents failed to do things. IIRC, Judge Miller noted that the Regents didn’t have to get involved for every step along the way. I dont know enough about each individual action the Regents apparently failed to do to know if they had to be involved. But it seems weak. Much of their argument is about delegation.

4. On the bond issue, they try to say they shouldn’t have to pay for one by citing 3 cases where one wasn’t demanded without anything more than noting that the bond wasnt required there. No real extensive looking into the facts to show a similar situation. Then, they cite Federal law for a while. Does federal law have any control here?

5. In its introduction to the Reasons Why We Should Get An New Injunction section, they cite 2 main reasons:

a)The trees will be cut down if not. Well, Judge Miller ruled the trees are a legal non-issue. Anything that relates in specific to the trees accomplishes nothing more than potentially annoying the Appellate Judges by wasting their time.
b)Nobody has determined if the Stadium complies with AP. Not sure off the top of my head if that is true. But either way, I don’t think that is relevant to this section of the litigation. That’s Phase II and III, right?

6. My fav part (besides the “stepping stone to help the beleaguered football team” as if there weren’t 14 other teams involved) is the contention that the 3 plaintiffs in the trial court got involved, because of how incredibly bad Cal’s EIR etc etc was. Yes, that’s why they got involved. And not for faux-environmentalism NIMBYism.

This thing is long and weak. Long and weak, hmmmm, where have I heard that before?

So what happens when Oregon starts to suck, only 25k fans go to games, and babies can peacefully sleep during games? House of Lame?

The best nicknames are the ones that happen naturally, are clever or punny and don’t blatantly spell out something (i.e. “our stadium is a loud stadium”). Didn’t Cal try something similar last year when they tried to come up with a nickname for the student section? We all got to vote on choices didn’t we? Or did I dream that while passed out waiting for the Tennessee game to start…

when Phil Knight is signing another million dollar check for upgrading your facilities.