The stage was set: UCLA basketball opening home game at legendary Pauley Pavilion with what was supposed to be fodder in Cal State Fullerton, making for an easy win coming off close games against Concordia and Humboldt State in preseason.
Right.
Someone forgot to tell Cal State Fullerton. They won in double overtime 68 to 65 and broke a nine-game string of losses to UCLA. With strength training and the Internet used to pass on coaching points, it's harder than ever to beat a non-ranked team without the ranked team playing its "A" game.
Teams don't just "see the name brand" and lay down anymore. If anything, "UCLA" or "Notre Dame" in football just fires teams up, in some cases causing them to play over their heads. Is CS Fullerton that good down the stretch? We shall see.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
What I Saw in Week 10
[Late Monday Night Edition]
Tuesday Morning Huddle
What I Saw in Week 10
By David Ortega for Football Reporters Online
Vikings quarterback still fantasy stud…. When the season started quarterback Brett Favre was not on anyone’s radar as a number one fantasy quarterback. At 40 years of age, Favre’s better days looked to be in the rear view mirror or so we thought. In Favre’s last four starts he is averaging 300-yards passing per game with eight touchdowns and only one interception.
Marvelous McNabb throws for a mile…. The Eagles quarterback played very well on Sunday, but no matter how often he threw (55 times) or who he threw the ball to (seven different receivers) it wasn’t enough. While the Eagles fell McNabb’s numbers rose with 35 completions for 450 yards in the air and two touchdowns in a week 10 loss to the Chargers.
Action Jackson will not be stopped…. If you drafted running back Steven Jackson, but had second thoughts because the Rams offense is just bad pat yourself on the back for sticking with the stud. The St. Louis Rams may be 1-7, but that is not stopping “Action” Jackson from having a big season. On Sunday Jackson turned in his third straight 100-yard rushing game with 176 total yards against the Saints. Only twice has Jackson totaled less than 100 yards and for the season he has 1,146 yards of total offense ranking second behind Chris Johnson. Worst of the Worst
When it comes to the Raiders-Chiefs rivalry, the Silver and Black know very little about home-field advantage. Thanks primarily to an inept offense that converted just 12 percent (2/16) of third downs, completed just 13 of 32 passes, and turned the ball over twice, the Raiders lost for the seventh straight time at home against the Chiefs. The Raiders are now 2-7; how did they win two games?
Jury is still Out
Has the Broncos offense finally turned the corner? Well after a fast start on Sunday against the Redskins, it certainly appeared that McDaniels had made the necessary adjustments and the offense was finally right. This was all until disaster struck. After watching Orton complete 11 of 18 for 193 yards and two touchdowns in the first half, the Broncos offense completely disappeared with backup Chris Simms in the game for the injured Orton. With a big matchup with San Diego in week 11 and Simms the likely starter, the offense might regress some before taking any more forward steps. The Jury is going to remain out on Denver’s “Patriot’s West” offense, at least until a healthy Orton returns.
10 Things I Remember From Sunday
(Week 10)
1. The Panthers used their two-headed monster out of the back-field to take down the Falcons; Stewart and Williams combined for 174 yards and two touchdowns.
2. One of my “Four Horsemen” Sidney Rice puts up 201 receiving yards against the Lions secondary.
3. The Titan’s running back Chris Johnson plays like a stud in a league of his own totaling 232 yards and scoring two touchdowns against the Bills.
4. The Redskins offensive line just blew holes into the Broncos defense all day to the tune of 174 yards on the ground.
5. Despite their recent struggles through the air, the Broncos and quarterback Kyle Orton came out gun-slinging in week 10; Orton passed for 193 yards in the first half before leaving with an injury.
6. The “Old man” in Arizona Kurt Warner took a while to get started, but once he did he was unstoppable completing 29 of 38 passes for over 300-yards and two touchdowns.
7. The Bengals defense showed up on Sunday against Big Ben and the Steelers recording four sacks and a forced fumble in their 18-12 win.
8. Steven Jackson is a one man wrecking crew in St. Louis rushing for 131 yards and catching nine balls for another 45 yards.
9. Who is Brandon Gibson, likely the next Waiver wire darling after catching seven passes for 93 yards.
10. Peyton Manning is still Peyton Manning; Sunday night against the Patriots he passed for 327 yards with four touchdowns.
Mediocre NFC Yields Giant Strides For Big Blue During Bye Week
Mediocre NFC Yields Giant Strides For Big Blue During Bye Week
BY Jon Wagner-Sr. Writer at Large Football Reporters Online
New York Giant fans can now calm down a little this week. Rest assured, at this point, there’s still very much of a season left for Big Blue.
It wouldn’t be New York if its fans and media didn’t often overreact to each game that any professional team plays in New York. That response just comes with the territory when rooting for or discussing teams in the New York City area.
Sure enough, to the degree that the Giants were being discussed as part of the National Football League elite after a dominant 5-0 start, was the extent to which many in the New York area were asking what was wrong with the Giants and how New York could let its entire season slip away after a subsequent four-game slide.
No doubt, the questions surrounding the problems that the Giants still need to fix this season were, and still are, legitimate. And, if the Giants don’t soon rectify a lot of the issues that were exposed during their aforementioned four-game losing streak, it’s true, Big Blue’s goal of reaching the playoffs could be in serious jeopardy.
But, for those who were spewing all of the doom and gloom talk about the Giants’ playoff possibilities, many going so far as to say that the Giants’ fourth straight loss ended their season, take a look at the current NFC standings after what happened on Sunday, as the Giants tried to regroup during their bye week.
Sure, New York had slipped from 5-0 to 5-4, and from first place to third place in the NFC East.
Yet, simply by not playing, the Giants moved back into a tie for second place with the 5-4 Philadelphia Eagles (who were beaten in San Diego on Sunday), and are now just one game behind the 6-3 Dallas Cowboys, the NFC East leaders, who lost at Green Bay this week.
As for the NFC wild-card race, the Giants and Eagles are not only tied for the wild-card lead with each other, but also with the 5-4 Atlanta Falcons (losers at Carolina on Sunday) and the 5-4 Green Bay Packers. Carolina, San Francisco, and Chicago are each a game back, at 4-5.
For all of this past week’s chatter about the Giants’ season being over, New York still very much controls its own destiny as long as it can pull everything together and play better.
The Giants host Atlanta next week, while having other home dates with Dallas, Philadelphia, and Carolina in December. And, the Giants are done with both the Cowboys and Eagles on the road.
The bottom line is that while the Giants have to correct a lot of what plagued them while losing four games in a row, and they still have much work to do in order to reach the playoffs this year, they’re very far from the fate many had prematurely predicted for them (if any Giants are Mark Twain fans, they can certainly relate).
As evidenced while the Giants rested this week, no one else in the NFC East seems to be running away with their division, and even less so in the NFC wild-card picture.
So, at least for now Giant fans, view the remaining Giant games in this season the same way your team plans on approaching them. It may sound clichéd, but forget about the recent past and take the rest of the season one game at a time.
Because it doesn’t appear that anything regarding where the Giants are headed this season, one way or the other, will be determined any time soon.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Lauren Bacall, Roger Corman, and Gordon Willis get first Oscars of season
The first Governor's Awards were given Saturday night, kicking off the film awards season and marking the first time the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences gave out honorary Oscars at a ceremony separate from The Academy Awards. Lauren Bacall, Roger Corman, and Gordon Willis were honored. Let's take a video look at their work, staring with the legendary Lauren Bacall.
Lauren Becall was introduced by Angelica Huston, who said "Lauren Becall once said 'Stardom isn't a career; it's an accident", then observed that for Becall, celebrity was no accident.
Becall took the stage to a massive ovation and looking at her Oscar said "I can't believe it. A man, at last."
Lauren Bacall is known for being statuesque, confident, and damn sexy. With a voice that could melt you as much as it commands your attention, Becall went on to star in the classic film The Big Sleep, and was best known for her relationship with Humprey Bogart. But to many Ms. Becall was associated with a then-new cigarette-cool class and style that was the hallmark of the post war feminine image.
Here's Lauren Bacall in The Big Sleep:
Roger Corman was introduced by one of my favorite filmmakers Jonathan Demme (The Silence of the Lambs, Philadelphia) , said that Corman had a "mind-bloggling ability to create successful films under impossibly tight schedules and budgets."
Roger Corman is known as the "King of the B-Movie Makers." Some of Mr. Corman's films have come to define American Culture, particularly the bombastic yet creepy sci-fi / horror movie introductions of the day, like this one from Corman's It Conquered the World (1957):
Gordon Willis was introduced by actor Jeff Bridges, who remarked that Willis was being feted for his "unsurpassed mastery of light, shadow, color, and motion."
Willis said that he was fortunate that he was able to do "pretty much what I wanted to do" in his career.
Cinematographer Gordon Willis is best known for my personal all time favorite film, The Godfather, which I've seen 44 times now. Here's the final scene from part one of Francis Ford Coppola's modern epic:
In all the awards show was a success, even with the occasional flubbing of the introductory lines that one would not seen in an Oscar telecast. But then, this wasn't on television. The Governor's Awards had the feeling of a party at an exclusive club, but considering the legends in the room, that was the best way to do it.
Lauren Bacall
Lauren Becall was introduced by Angelica Huston, who said "Lauren Becall once said 'Stardom isn't a career; it's an accident", then observed that for Becall, celebrity was no accident.
Becall took the stage to a massive ovation and looking at her Oscar said "I can't believe it. A man, at last."
Lauren Bacall is known for being statuesque, confident, and damn sexy. With a voice that could melt you as much as it commands your attention, Becall went on to star in the classic film The Big Sleep, and was best known for her relationship with Humprey Bogart. But to many Ms. Becall was associated with a then-new cigarette-cool class and style that was the hallmark of the post war feminine image.
Here's Lauren Bacall in The Big Sleep:
Roger Corman
Roger Corman was introduced by one of my favorite filmmakers Jonathan Demme (The Silence of the Lambs, Philadelphia) , said that Corman had a "mind-bloggling ability to create successful films under impossibly tight schedules and budgets."
Roger Corman is known as the "King of the B-Movie Makers." Some of Mr. Corman's films have come to define American Culture, particularly the bombastic yet creepy sci-fi / horror movie introductions of the day, like this one from Corman's It Conquered the World (1957):
Gordon Willis
Gordon Willis was introduced by actor Jeff Bridges, who remarked that Willis was being feted for his "unsurpassed mastery of light, shadow, color, and motion."
Willis said that he was fortunate that he was able to do "pretty much what I wanted to do" in his career.
Cinematographer Gordon Willis is best known for my personal all time favorite film, The Godfather, which I've seen 44 times now. Here's the final scene from part one of Francis Ford Coppola's modern epic:
In all the awards show was a success, even with the occasional flubbing of the introductory lines that one would not seen in an Oscar telecast. But then, this wasn't on television. The Governor's Awards had the feeling of a party at an exclusive club, but considering the legends in the room, that was the best way to do it.
Chabot Community College in trouble with Alameda County Taxpayers' Association over Calpine plant
The whole Calpine Hayward Energy Plant story just got more interesting for me when I happened on a "Letter to The Editor" presented on the Oakland Tribune website and dated November 6th:
But who's Arthur B. Geen?
Mr. Geen is Executive Vice President of the Alameda County Taxpayers Association, so he's in a position to know what's going on, even though he didn't use the word "I" or "we" in his letter. But that aside, the question of why Chabot may be using taxpayer dollars to fight a new plant that's over a mile away from it is a question. But what's the problem? A brief recap.
Calpine is a Texas-based energy producer which specializes in the development of clean energy plants. In fact, it's website goes so far as to make the bold claim that...
For about eight years, Calpine has worked to obtain approval for the construction of a 600-megawatt "Russell City Energy Center" complex in Hayward, California, which if built would be America's first one designed to adhere to the National Greenhouse Gas Limit.
To that end, Calpine partnered with General Electric and is now at a point where the Bay Area Air Quality Management District held a public hearing to obtain community comments on the plant proposal.
Even with such a statement as on their website, and frankly some pretty determined efforts to make do on their clean energy objectives with respect to the Hayward plant proposal, some in Hayward aren't convinced. That was much was obvious at the BAAQMD meeting:
But it seems opposition to the plant has taken an unfortunate turn. If the Alameda County Taxpayer's Letter printed in the Oakland Tribune is to be understood, Chabot Community College is taking unusual steps to block the plants construction.
While Chabot is claiming to be in a budget crisis, Geen is concerned that taxpayer dollars it should be using to help maintain student-related programs are going, in part, to a legal battle against a plant who's impact on the facility may not warrant such spending.
Moreover, what does not make sense to me is why Chabot would alledegly spend tax dollars to block a project that helps make tax revenue for it? That's a real head shrinker to me. An online petition gained only 94 signatures of Chabot students and staffers, so if there's not an overwhelming opposition to the plant, why all the expenditures by the college?
It's just the proximity. Even at just over a mile, the idea of a plant just doesn't sit well with some of the Hayward folks. I don't think it's an issue of not being able to be convinced eventually, but given the urban setting it's a hard task.
Still, I'm not understanding the whole tax dollar use - if it's true. If it is, the next question is how much and what in student services is being given up to do this.
Will Chabot reps have an answer for me?
Stay tuned.
Inappropriate spending
FOR THE past 10 or more years, the Alameda County Taxpayers' Association has worked to shine a light on wasteful spending by public agencies.
We are deeply concerned about spending practices at Chabot Community College.
Deep budget deficits have forced Chabot to lay off faculty and staff, cut programs and increase student fees.
At the same time, Chabot has been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to oppose a project that has no connection to the institution's educational mission.
It has hired a team of high-priced lawyers and consultants to comment on the construction of a new power plant in Hayward — a project that environmental regulators have determined has no impact to the health of the community.
In addition to having the first-of-its-kind limit on the emission of greenhouse gases, the project Chabot is trying to stop will create 650 jobs and generate $30 million in new taxes at a time when our public institutions are struggling to provide basic services.
The association believes it is irresponsible for public officials to spend taxpayer dollars in this manner, and they must be held accountable for their spending practices.
To determine how much Chabot has spent on this effort, the association has submitted a Public Records Act request.
Arthur B. Geen
Oakland
But who's Arthur B. Geen?
Mr. Geen is Executive Vice President of the Alameda County Taxpayers Association, so he's in a position to know what's going on, even though he didn't use the word "I" or "we" in his letter. But that aside, the question of why Chabot may be using taxpayer dollars to fight a new plant that's over a mile away from it is a question. But what's the problem? A brief recap.
Calpine is a Texas-based energy producer which specializes in the development of clean energy plants. In fact, it's website goes so far as to make the bold claim that...
Calpine has the most environmentally friendly power plant fleet in the world. All of its plants are either fueled by clean natural gas or renewable geothermal steam. Calpine has the largest, cleanest, most fuel-efficient fleet of gas-fired power plants in North America. In fact, the company's projects frequently exceed compliance standards for environmental and public health protections, going beyond the legal requirements, and notable environmental, health and consumer groups have applauded Calpine.
For about eight years, Calpine has worked to obtain approval for the construction of a 600-megawatt "Russell City Energy Center" complex in Hayward, California, which if built would be America's first one designed to adhere to the National Greenhouse Gas Limit.
To that end, Calpine partnered with General Electric and is now at a point where the Bay Area Air Quality Management District held a public hearing to obtain community comments on the plant proposal.
Even with such a statement as on their website, and frankly some pretty determined efforts to make do on their clean energy objectives with respect to the Hayward plant proposal, some in Hayward aren't convinced. That was much was obvious at the BAAQMD meeting:
But it seems opposition to the plant has taken an unfortunate turn. If the Alameda County Taxpayer's Letter printed in the Oakland Tribune is to be understood, Chabot Community College is taking unusual steps to block the plants construction.
While Chabot is claiming to be in a budget crisis, Geen is concerned that taxpayer dollars it should be using to help maintain student-related programs are going, in part, to a legal battle against a plant who's impact on the facility may not warrant such spending.
Moreover, what does not make sense to me is why Chabot would alledegly spend tax dollars to block a project that helps make tax revenue for it? That's a real head shrinker to me. An online petition gained only 94 signatures of Chabot students and staffers, so if there's not an overwhelming opposition to the plant, why all the expenditures by the college?
It's just the proximity. Even at just over a mile, the idea of a plant just doesn't sit well with some of the Hayward folks. I don't think it's an issue of not being able to be convinced eventually, but given the urban setting it's a hard task.
Still, I'm not understanding the whole tax dollar use - if it's true. If it is, the next question is how much and what in student services is being given up to do this.
Will Chabot reps have an answer for me?
Stay tuned.
Sarah Palin not "buzzing" in Internet search trends
Ok, it's 4:12 PST and the long awaited interview between Sarah Palin and Oprah is on - and I'm missing it. I'm working online but had to click over and check Google Trends, expecting to find "sarah palin" among the top 10 search trends, but not. It's not there, and there's no derivative keyword term in the top 20 or 30 results.
It's not until number 39 that we see "oprah sarah palin interview" as a trend, and even then it's not a search trend that's "On Fire" or "Volcanic". Nah. It's just "Spicy". Moreover, its near the bottom of the list of 40 results, which means that since "sarah palin" hasn't been hot all day long, this term's going to drop from the list soon.
Why is it not a really hot search? Well, I think we're seeing a saturation of news and views on Sarah Palin. And while she's a top Yahoo Buzz search trend, that's for a longer period than just today and reflects the still respectable but not incredible level of interest in her. But Yahoo only controls at best 20 percent of the search market,
But there's interest in the interview. Oprah's instincts were correct. America's love of public displays of conflict and controversy created the desire to see Oprah and Sarah Palin together. It's no wonder Oprah, but not "Sarah Palin" or even "palin" is a top trend on Twitter. It's the interview more than Palin herself.
From a trend standpoint, this buzz surrounding her book Going Rogue will last for another month, then poof, gone. Without Sarah as Governor of Alaska there's nothing else to hang on to except the occasional blasts courtesy of newly minted porn start Levi Johnston.
A good source of evidence to support my claim is called "Google Insights for Search" (GIS) which is excelent at revealing long term keyword search trends. At GIS, a strongly searched or term is over 50. Sarah Palin didn't top that until last Thursday November 12th, peaked on Friday at almost 100 and then fell to just over 70 on Sunday.
If one drills down more, the two top terms containing "Sarah Palin" or "Palin" are some combination of sarah palin and oprah. In other words, again, it's not Sarah Palin herself, but the interview with Oprah fueling search trends.
All of this should give Sarah Palin supporters cause to question her real level of popularity as well as if it can translate into a Presidential run. I don't think she's as popular as some contend and I hold that her overall buzz-factor is weak on its own.
The best future course for Sarah Palin is as a talk show host but her future as a politician is just not there. A future Rush Limbaugh? For some reason I don't see that formula working in her favor. She has the capacity to build her own audience with its own unique flavor. It's just not going to translate into votes for the White House.
Gov. Sarah Palin
It's not until number 39 that we see "oprah sarah palin interview" as a trend, and even then it's not a search trend that's "On Fire" or "Volcanic". Nah. It's just "Spicy". Moreover, its near the bottom of the list of 40 results, which means that since "sarah palin" hasn't been hot all day long, this term's going to drop from the list soon.
Why is it not a really hot search? Well, I think we're seeing a saturation of news and views on Sarah Palin. And while she's a top Yahoo Buzz search trend, that's for a longer period than just today and reflects the still respectable but not incredible level of interest in her. But Yahoo only controls at best 20 percent of the search market,
But there's interest in the interview. Oprah's instincts were correct. America's love of public displays of conflict and controversy created the desire to see Oprah and Sarah Palin together. It's no wonder Oprah, but not "Sarah Palin" or even "palin" is a top trend on Twitter. It's the interview more than Palin herself.
From a trend standpoint, this buzz surrounding her book Going Rogue will last for another month, then poof, gone. Without Sarah as Governor of Alaska there's nothing else to hang on to except the occasional blasts courtesy of newly minted porn start Levi Johnston.
A good source of evidence to support my claim is called "Google Insights for Search" (GIS) which is excelent at revealing long term keyword search trends. At GIS, a strongly searched or term is over 50. Sarah Palin didn't top that until last Thursday November 12th, peaked on Friday at almost 100 and then fell to just over 70 on Sunday.
If one drills down more, the two top terms containing "Sarah Palin" or "Palin" are some combination of sarah palin and oprah. In other words, again, it's not Sarah Palin herself, but the interview with Oprah fueling search trends.
All of this should give Sarah Palin supporters cause to question her real level of popularity as well as if it can translate into a Presidential run. I don't think she's as popular as some contend and I hold that her overall buzz-factor is weak on its own.
The best future course for Sarah Palin is as a talk show host but her future as a politician is just not there. A future Rush Limbaugh? For some reason I don't see that formula working in her favor. She has the capacity to build her own audience with its own unique flavor. It's just not going to translate into votes for the White House.
President Obama's bow: Fox News' silly attack on Obama
Fox News. I'm not surprised the latest mainstream media attack on President Obama's bow to the Emperor of Japan comes from Fox News, and equally I'm not shocked to see the captions "Take a Bow" and "Sign of Subservience" used in their telecast. Further, I'm not at all taken aback to see the Fox and Friends female host wearing a real short skirt and sleeveless blouse. Goes right along with my video on Fox News' habits:
It proves the point I've crafted and made all along. The Couch Potato Conservatives have no interest in applying, clear, intelligent, critical thinking to political matters. They'd prefer to use "red meat reporting" to appeal to what they perceive as the "Angry White Male" demographic.
And if you think I'm making that up to be provacative, click on the link and you'll find it comes right from a "Freeper" (Free Republic blogger and reader), Douglas Turner. Turner also mentions Fox News as a key player in the effort to stoke the passions of "Angry White Males."
I can't figure out which one's I can't stand more: Angry Black Men, Angry White Men, Angry Black Women, or Angry Asian Men. Lot's of anger out there, but I digress.
The main point is right wing Fox News covers up the truth about the appropriateness of Obama's bow by showing its viewers a lot of female leg combined with a heavy dose of macho political ideology plus the creation of the idea that it's wrong to bow to a non-white monarch.
Unfortunately, this "Obama bow" issue is divided along racial and political lines, with black blogs like Jack and Jill Politics in agreement with me, and liberal blogs like the Daily Kos providing the evidence of Fox News' unfair and unbalanced reporting.
This Daily Kos video neatly displays the way Fox News distorts the "Obama bow"issue, and presents MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show presentation of President George W. Bush holding hands with and kissing Saudi King Abdullah.
Fox News: they report and they decide for you.
It proves the point I've crafted and made all along. The Couch Potato Conservatives have no interest in applying, clear, intelligent, critical thinking to political matters. They'd prefer to use "red meat reporting" to appeal to what they perceive as the "Angry White Male" demographic.
And if you think I'm making that up to be provacative, click on the link and you'll find it comes right from a "Freeper" (Free Republic blogger and reader), Douglas Turner. Turner also mentions Fox News as a key player in the effort to stoke the passions of "Angry White Males."
Opposing Republican senators acted out a version of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” of appealing to angry white males, now backed by the drumbeat of hired brown-shirts wrecking Democratic town meetings in the August recess, racist cartoons flooding the Internet and the rant on Fox News that President Obama has a “deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.”
I can't figure out which one's I can't stand more: Angry Black Men, Angry White Men, Angry Black Women, or Angry Asian Men. Lot's of anger out there, but I digress.
The main point is right wing Fox News covers up the truth about the appropriateness of Obama's bow by showing its viewers a lot of female leg combined with a heavy dose of macho political ideology plus the creation of the idea that it's wrong to bow to a non-white monarch.
Unfortunately, this "Obama bow" issue is divided along racial and political lines, with black blogs like Jack and Jill Politics in agreement with me, and liberal blogs like the Daily Kos providing the evidence of Fox News' unfair and unbalanced reporting.
This Daily Kos video neatly displays the way Fox News distorts the "Obama bow"issue, and presents MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show presentation of President George W. Bush holding hands with and kissing Saudi King Abdullah.
Fox News: they report and they decide for you.
Cal 30, Stanford 21 - Golden Bears win Big Game (here's how)
The 113th annual Big Game is this Saturday at Stanford, and everyone's picking Stanford to wax California that evening. But I know the California Golden Bears are capable of beating the Cardinal and by the score of 30 to 21.
Here's how.
First, some sobering observations. The Stanford Cardinal carry the same 7 and 3 overall record into this game. Cal is 4 and 3 in the Pac-10; Stanford is 6 and 2. So in terms of record, Stanford and Cal are the same, but this game's important for Cal because it could place them at even with the Cardinal in the Pac-10 from a loss standpoint. And Stanford and Cal are 17th and 25th respectively in the BCS rankings. So Cal has motivation and a way to beat the Cardinal.
Stanford has one glaring weakness that Cal must take advantage of: Quarterback Andy Luck.
(Yes. Luck is the weak link for the Cardinal. I know some of you scoff at my claim and mightly, but I argue forcefully that Luck can't carry a whole game for the Cardinal and win. The running game makes him a better quarterback.)
Unlike Kevin Riley, who's completion percentage virtually dictates if Cal wins or loses, Andy Luck's numbers have nothing to do with Stanford wins; in his last three games, including the blow-outs of Oregon and USC, he was below 65 percent in pass completion rate. Against USC, he was 12-of-22 for 144 yards passing and two touchdowns. Not superhuman numbers.
What this tells me is I can develop a game plan that places the ball in Luck's hands and forces Stanford to throw, where they're not as successful as when they run. Stanford uses the run to set up the pass, but so much so it's better to use eight-defenders, play tight coverage, blitz one or two backers (not more) - smother the run game, and force the pass.
Stanford's receivers both have over 16 yards average per catch, so throwing short is not Stanford's habit; blitz the Cardinal. (And blitz on the offenses left side where Stanford has had protection problems all year long with the injuries to their left tackle Allen Smith.)
Toby Gerhard, Stanford's terrific running back, is second in the nation in rushing with 1395 yards on 262 carries for a 5.3 yard average and 19 touchdowns. Stop him and Cal stops the Cardinal.
But stopping Gerhard also means keeping the ball away from Stanford, and Cal can do that but it must be willing to commit to throwing the ball short and often. If Cal can concentrate on installing high-percentage passes and working toward a 60-40 run-pass play mix it can move the ball downfield to score.
Where Cal gets into major trouble is in trying to force the deep throw and what bothers me is some of the passing plays of that variety lack an appropriate safety valve for the quarterback; a running back just running a short pattern.
The most successful pass plays against Stanford actually come out of spread dive play fakes (as Arizona runs and Cal does have in its playbook), pulling the linebackers in. So, play action passing is the way to focus on gaining yardage against Stanford.
But again, Cal can't get greedy in trying to gain yardage. (Got that Cal Offensive Coordinator Andy Ludwig?) The Golden Bears must focus on gaining four to six yards per play and let the plays open the way for more yardage after the catch or a missed tackle on a running play.
The only place where I break that rule is the opening play. Cal must make a statement here. It must say to the Cardinal, "We're here to blow you out of your house." The best way to do that is open the game with a flea-flicker.
Cal Coach Jeff Tedford was once known for trick plays (in fact he opened his Cal career with a flea-flicker against Baylor seven years ago) but hasn't called many this year, really almost none. A dive-play, toss back to the quarterback who throws to the split end out of a running formation, will fire up Cal players and fans, and it might just work for a touchdown because Cal's not done it this year.
That's just the "punch in the gut" that will lead to a Cal victory. Anything less, even a reverse, is just not daring and not what this game calls for. After all, it's the Big Game.
Cal can win the game, 30 to 21. If my pattern is used, Cal will go up by as much as two touchdowns before Stanford's running game takes hold, but then and because runs eat clock time, it will be too late.
Bears win!
(Hey Alumni! It's BIG GAME week! Get fired up!)
The Big Game
Here's how.
First, some sobering observations. The Stanford Cardinal carry the same 7 and 3 overall record into this game. Cal is 4 and 3 in the Pac-10; Stanford is 6 and 2. So in terms of record, Stanford and Cal are the same, but this game's important for Cal because it could place them at even with the Cardinal in the Pac-10 from a loss standpoint. And Stanford and Cal are 17th and 25th respectively in the BCS rankings. So Cal has motivation and a way to beat the Cardinal.
Stanford has one glaring weakness that Cal must take advantage of: Quarterback Andy Luck.
(Yes. Luck is the weak link for the Cardinal. I know some of you scoff at my claim and mightly, but I argue forcefully that Luck can't carry a whole game for the Cardinal and win. The running game makes him a better quarterback.)
Unlike Kevin Riley, who's completion percentage virtually dictates if Cal wins or loses, Andy Luck's numbers have nothing to do with Stanford wins; in his last three games, including the blow-outs of Oregon and USC, he was below 65 percent in pass completion rate. Against USC, he was 12-of-22 for 144 yards passing and two touchdowns. Not superhuman numbers.
What this tells me is I can develop a game plan that places the ball in Luck's hands and forces Stanford to throw, where they're not as successful as when they run. Stanford uses the run to set up the pass, but so much so it's better to use eight-defenders, play tight coverage, blitz one or two backers (not more) - smother the run game, and force the pass.
Stanford's receivers both have over 16 yards average per catch, so throwing short is not Stanford's habit; blitz the Cardinal. (And blitz on the offenses left side where Stanford has had protection problems all year long with the injuries to their left tackle Allen Smith.)
Toby Gerhard, Stanford's terrific running back, is second in the nation in rushing with 1395 yards on 262 carries for a 5.3 yard average and 19 touchdowns. Stop him and Cal stops the Cardinal.
But stopping Gerhard also means keeping the ball away from Stanford, and Cal can do that but it must be willing to commit to throwing the ball short and often. If Cal can concentrate on installing high-percentage passes and working toward a 60-40 run-pass play mix it can move the ball downfield to score.
Where Cal gets into major trouble is in trying to force the deep throw and what bothers me is some of the passing plays of that variety lack an appropriate safety valve for the quarterback; a running back just running a short pattern.
The most successful pass plays against Stanford actually come out of spread dive play fakes (as Arizona runs and Cal does have in its playbook), pulling the linebackers in. So, play action passing is the way to focus on gaining yardage against Stanford.
But again, Cal can't get greedy in trying to gain yardage. (Got that Cal Offensive Coordinator Andy Ludwig?) The Golden Bears must focus on gaining four to six yards per play and let the plays open the way for more yardage after the catch or a missed tackle on a running play.
The only place where I break that rule is the opening play. Cal must make a statement here. It must say to the Cardinal, "We're here to blow you out of your house." The best way to do that is open the game with a flea-flicker.
Cal Coach Jeff Tedford was once known for trick plays (in fact he opened his Cal career with a flea-flicker against Baylor seven years ago) but hasn't called many this year, really almost none. A dive-play, toss back to the quarterback who throws to the split end out of a running formation, will fire up Cal players and fans, and it might just work for a touchdown because Cal's not done it this year.
That's just the "punch in the gut" that will lead to a Cal victory. Anything less, even a reverse, is just not daring and not what this game calls for. After all, it's the Big Game.
Cal can win the game, 30 to 21. If my pattern is used, Cal will go up by as much as two touchdowns before Stanford's running game takes hold, but then and because runs eat clock time, it will be too late.
Bears win!
(Hey Alumni! It's BIG GAME week! Get fired up!)
Tom Hayes: Another gender barrier drops
Royal Air Force Flight Lieutenant Kirsty Moore is the first non-male pilot to join the Red Arrows, the Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team. Moore was already exceptionally familiar with the Hawk aircraft used by the Red Arrows as she's a Qualified Flying Instructor coaching "fast jet pilots" on that aircraft at RAF Valley in Wales.That's Lietuenant Moore, second from the left in the image above, returning from a flight with team-mates at RAF Scampton on Nov. 12 in Lincoln, England. From the left: Ben Plank, Moore, Zane Sennett, Ben Murphy, and Dave Davies following the launch/unveiling of the 2010 team line-up.
For a dozen more beautiful images, see the article Red Arrows present their first woman pilot at the Sacramento Bee. To see any of the images here in a larger scale, just click the pictures.
Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Colts shock Patriots 35 to 34, remain undefeated and rule Twitter
I was watching the Colts v. Patriots game over dinner at 13 views at the Hyatt Regency San Francisco and saw my Twitter page light up with the Colts updates. It was better than ESPN. Before the Colts scored to shock Tom Brady and the New England Patriots, about 1,500 tweets were issued within a second; when the Colts scored, that number jumped to 9.648 tweets in a second.
Wow.
Twitter aside, that was one of the best games of the year. As the NFL Network's analyst seemed anxious to tell us, the Patriots passing game was giving the Colts Defense fits. On top of that, Quarterback Peyton Manning was throwing some ducks for a while there. But no matter because the Pats beat themselves.
In a game Tom Brady will relive in his dreams, New England thrice lost the ball on plays at the one or in the end zone. On top of that, New England Head Coach Bill Belichick thought his team was stronger than the Colts Defense and went for it on fourth and two - and didn't make it.
Why he did that is stuck in his fertile imagination, but he did it.
No matter. Colts win. But I have a feeling these two are going to see each other in the playoffs again. As a Colts fan, I can't wait. The Pats didn't get the Colts best game, and still lost.
Wow.
Wow.
Twitter aside, that was one of the best games of the year. As the NFL Network's analyst seemed anxious to tell us, the Patriots passing game was giving the Colts Defense fits. On top of that, Quarterback Peyton Manning was throwing some ducks for a while there. But no matter because the Pats beat themselves.
In a game Tom Brady will relive in his dreams, New England thrice lost the ball on plays at the one or in the end zone. On top of that, New England Head Coach Bill Belichick thought his team was stronger than the Colts Defense and went for it on fourth and two - and didn't make it.
Why he did that is stuck in his fertile imagination, but he did it.
No matter. Colts win. But I have a feeling these two are going to see each other in the playoffs again. As a Colts fan, I can't wait. The Pats didn't get the Colts best game, and still lost.
Wow.
BCS rankings November 15: Five Pac-10 teams in
The BCS rankings for November 15th are out; I know Carrie Prejean must be happy that something's taking the Internet's interest away from her.
The BCS rankings have find Florida, Alabama, and Texas ranked one, two, and three, with the undefeated TCU Horned Frogs at number 4. But this week Pac-10 Football is well-represented, as five teams - Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, and USC - are in the BCS rankings.
After a dramatic 24 to 16 win over Arizona at Berkeley that left me so horse I could barely talk this morning, Cal knocked Arizona out of the BCS and was helped by Notre Dame's loss to Pitt, and Oklahoma's 10-3 loss to Nebraska, dropping the Fighting Irish and the Sooners out of the BCS as well.
The way Notre Dame's fallen I've got to believe Head Coach Charlie Weis' job's in trouble. Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick said:
That doesn't read good for Weis and if Stanford hammers Notre Dame the way the Cardinal nuked USC, Weis may see his final year at the helm of the Fighting Irish.
Meanwhile, the Cardinal rolls on.
After blowing out USC 55 to 21, Stanford is at 17th and one ahead of the same USC team it clobbered yesterday, which is now at 18.
As Cal (25th ranked) and Stanford play in the Big Game this Saturday, the annual contest now means a lot more than just bragging rights. A Cal win could knock Stanford out of contention for the Pac-10 Championship.
BCS rankings November 15:
1 Florida 10-0
2 Alabama 10-0
3 Texas 10-0
4 TCU 10-0
5 Cincinnati 10-0
6 Boise State 10-0
7 Georgia Tech 10-1
8 LSU 8-2
9 Pittsburgh 9-1
10 Ohio State 9-2
11 Oregon 8-2
12 Oklahoma State 8-2
13 Iowa 9-2
14 Penn State 9-2
15 Virginia Tech 7-3
16 Wisconsin 8-2
17 Stanford 7-3
18 USC 7-3
19 Oregon State 7-3
20 Miami (FL) 7-3
21 Utah 8-2
22 Brigham Young 8-2
23 Clemson 7-3
24 Houston 8-2
25 California 7-3
The BCS rankings have find Florida, Alabama, and Texas ranked one, two, and three, with the undefeated TCU Horned Frogs at number 4. But this week Pac-10 Football is well-represented, as five teams - Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, and USC - are in the BCS rankings.
After a dramatic 24 to 16 win over Arizona at Berkeley that left me so horse I could barely talk this morning, Cal knocked Arizona out of the BCS and was helped by Notre Dame's loss to Pitt, and Oklahoma's 10-3 loss to Nebraska, dropping the Fighting Irish and the Sooners out of the BCS as well.
The way Notre Dame's fallen I've got to believe Head Coach Charlie Weis' job's in trouble. Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick said:
"We said at the beginning of the season that we wanted to be in contention for and in the discussion of the (Bowl Championship Series) bowls, and for a while we were. But we didn't stay in contention as long as any of us would have liked.
"It's not like you don't evaluate during the year; you evaluate all year. But my practice is to make sure I've got the full season's worth of information and then conclude the evaluation."
That doesn't read good for Weis and if Stanford hammers Notre Dame the way the Cardinal nuked USC, Weis may see his final year at the helm of the Fighting Irish.
Meanwhile, the Cardinal rolls on.
After blowing out USC 55 to 21, Stanford is at 17th and one ahead of the same USC team it clobbered yesterday, which is now at 18.
As Cal (25th ranked) and Stanford play in the Big Game this Saturday, the annual contest now means a lot more than just bragging rights. A Cal win could knock Stanford out of contention for the Pac-10 Championship.
BCS rankings November 15:
1 Florida 10-0
2 Alabama 10-0
3 Texas 10-0
4 TCU 10-0
5 Cincinnati 10-0
6 Boise State 10-0
7 Georgia Tech 10-1
8 LSU 8-2
9 Pittsburgh 9-1
10 Ohio State 9-2
11 Oregon 8-2
12 Oklahoma State 8-2
13 Iowa 9-2
14 Penn State 9-2
15 Virginia Tech 7-3
16 Wisconsin 8-2
17 Stanford 7-3
18 USC 7-3
19 Oregon State 7-3
20 Miami (FL) 7-3
21 Utah 8-2
22 Brigham Young 8-2
23 Clemson 7-3
24 Houston 8-2
25 California 7-3
President Obama's bow to Emperor of Japan and racism in media
Aside from "Miley Cyrus dead", which is not true or funny, the Internet's abuzz with media commentary on President Obama's bow to The Emperor and Empress of Japan upon his visit Saturday.
The LA Times' blog asked "How low will he go" in their complaint of the President's actions. ABC News' Jack Tapper contacted a friend to ask if Obama's bow was correct. The conservative blog HotAir said the President looked like "an idiot" and referred to Tapper's blog. And of course Michelle Malkin can be counted on to offer her off-base and typically nasty view, calling the President a "waterboy."
I don't know why some are surprised or for that matter angry about Obama's actions. It's not the first time President Obama's bowed to a foreign dignitary, and I think it shows the proper level of respect. There seems to be this macho idea that American Presidents have to show they're tough and one way to do that is to avoid bowing to the Emperor of Japan, or for that matter Saudi King Abdullah, as President Obama did in April of this year.
Moreover, some Americans forget that kings and emperors are not elected officials, they're royalty. But in this, I have to point out a racial component to the conservative argument against Obama's bow to Japan's Emperor that's disturbing to me.
When Obama visited the Queen of England, much was made of what the protocol was for approaching Her Majesty. President Obama did bow slightly to her, but that was what he was supposed to do as one is to avoid overt gestures; a man is suppose to bow his head from the neck, and no more. That's what Obama did.
That fact escaped a number of people, particularly the Coach Potato Conservative "Freepers" over at Free Republic, who claim that Obama did not bow at all.
But Obama's correct "slight head nod" versus his full bow to King Abdullah was noted in this video, by CQBlogger on YouTube, but even then CQBlogger mistakenly wrote about the head nod as if Obama was in error; the President was not.
And the LA Times showed its total ignorance of Japanese culture, not even taking time to explain "bow" protocol in Japan, which I know all too well from my personal interest in Japanese Culture and visit to Japan.
There are three kinds of bows: the first is just about five degrees and is a greeting for friends; the second is about 10 degrees and is for a boss or senior in business; but the third one is at a full 15 degrees and is reserved for heads of state or The Emperor.
Obama's 15 degree bow to The Emperor of Japan was correct. I disagree with ABC's Jack Tapper in that it is proper for one to give their hand in greeting while bowing. So both the right and Tapper are wrong. But I do give Tapper credit for at least trying to check President Obama's effort with protocol, much as he would do if Obama were greeting the Queen of England.
Are Couch Potato Conservatives and the mainstream media complaining when Obama bows to any non-white monarch, but scoring his or First Lady Michelle Obama's every small move with white royalty, what we should expect in the Age of Obama? It certainly seems that way and that's a very sad pattern for America to display.
If Couch Potato Conservatives had their way, the kind of cowboy behavior of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney would be the order of the day: white monarchs would receive the proper greeting protocol and non-white royalty a simple hand shake. It's no wonder President Obama has to do so much work to do in restoring America's popularity around the World.
The LA Times' blog asked "How low will he go" in their complaint of the President's actions. ABC News' Jack Tapper contacted a friend to ask if Obama's bow was correct. The conservative blog HotAir said the President looked like "an idiot" and referred to Tapper's blog. And of course Michelle Malkin can be counted on to offer her off-base and typically nasty view, calling the President a "waterboy."
I don't know why some are surprised or for that matter angry about Obama's actions. It's not the first time President Obama's bowed to a foreign dignitary, and I think it shows the proper level of respect. There seems to be this macho idea that American Presidents have to show they're tough and one way to do that is to avoid bowing to the Emperor of Japan, or for that matter Saudi King Abdullah, as President Obama did in April of this year.
Obama bows to Saudi King Abdullah
Moreover, some Americans forget that kings and emperors are not elected officials, they're royalty. But in this, I have to point out a racial component to the conservative argument against Obama's bow to Japan's Emperor that's disturbing to me.
When Obama visited the Queen of England, much was made of what the protocol was for approaching Her Majesty. President Obama did bow slightly to her, but that was what he was supposed to do as one is to avoid overt gestures; a man is suppose to bow his head from the neck, and no more. That's what Obama did.
That fact escaped a number of people, particularly the Coach Potato Conservative "Freepers" over at Free Republic, who claim that Obama did not bow at all.
But Obama's correct "slight head nod" versus his full bow to King Abdullah was noted in this video, by CQBlogger on YouTube, but even then CQBlogger mistakenly wrote about the head nod as if Obama was in error; the President was not.
And the LA Times showed its total ignorance of Japanese culture, not even taking time to explain "bow" protocol in Japan, which I know all too well from my personal interest in Japanese Culture and visit to Japan.
There are three kinds of bows: the first is just about five degrees and is a greeting for friends; the second is about 10 degrees and is for a boss or senior in business; but the third one is at a full 15 degrees and is reserved for heads of state or The Emperor.
Obama's 15 degree bow to The Emperor of Japan was correct. I disagree with ABC's Jack Tapper in that it is proper for one to give their hand in greeting while bowing. So both the right and Tapper are wrong. But I do give Tapper credit for at least trying to check President Obama's effort with protocol, much as he would do if Obama were greeting the Queen of England.
Are Couch Potato Conservatives and the mainstream media complaining when Obama bows to any non-white monarch, but scoring his or First Lady Michelle Obama's every small move with white royalty, what we should expect in the Age of Obama? It certainly seems that way and that's a very sad pattern for America to display.
If Couch Potato Conservatives had their way, the kind of cowboy behavior of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney would be the order of the day: white monarchs would receive the proper greeting protocol and non-white royalty a simple hand shake. It's no wonder President Obama has to do so much work to do in restoring America's popularity around the World.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)