I have a lemon tree in my backyard.  I like it very much.  It looks pretty, it smells nice, it provides shade and, best of all, it provides me with free lemons.  All in all, it’s a pretty awesome tree.  You should be envious.

And yet, as a tree owner in Alameda County, I am apprehensive.  Owning a tree in this county can be quite a liability.  Based on recent legal precedent, if a smelly hippie were to decide to live in my tree, there’s very little I could do about it.  It would apparently be his right to freeload or some such nonsense.

Now, if said hippie were to live peaceably in my tree, to the point where I would not notice his presence, I could live with it.  (Note: this would require regular bathing on the part of the hippie, as I do like to open my windows in the summertime and enjoy the cool, cool breeze, lightly scented with lemon.)  I mean, squirrels regularly inhabit this tree, and the only one who seems bothered by them is my dog.  However, as UC Berkeley has recently seen, this scenario seems unlikely.  Hippies are much messier than squirrels, as evidenced by several propane tanks police found on the ground (presumably used to heat their soy-food), as well as ‘an increasing number of excrement and urine spills’ that have occurred.

So what can a tree-owner, such as myself or the University of California, do about the mess?  Well, my lemon tree isn’t a very tall one, so I would have little trouble forcibly removing a hippie from its branches — I have a ladder and sharp gardening tools.  Still, even though hippies have no money, I’m sure some meddling lawyer would take the hippie’s side, pro bono, and charge me with assault and other such nonsense.  I don’t need that kind of trouble.  But will the law help me out of my bind?  Apparently not.  It seems that since such a mess does not constitute an immediate fire or safety hazard, I’d just have to live with it, as UC apparently will have to.

However, if I have friends over for a backyard BBQ, the law will at least allow me to put up a chain-link fence around the tree.  You know, for the safety of the hippie.  *Awk-ward!*  Such a fence should at least keep the hippie from pooping on my guests, although it will hardly drown out the ‘Meat is Murder!’ chants that’ll start once I fire up the grill.

So far, UC is being a pretty good sport about this whole situation.  In fact, they’re considering planting 3 new trees for every old one they get rid of.  I say:  you’d better think twice, UC.  Every tree you plant can potentially become no-income housing for smelly hippies that will poop on your land and leave trash everywhere.  Not worth the hassle.  If you want to beautify the campus, plant rose bushes instead.  If you deprive hippies of the ability to freeload, perhaps they’ll be forced to go and get real jobs, bagging groceries at Berkeley Bowl like honest liberals with no salable skills.

Have a few more loose ends that weren’t posted as of this morning that you might be interested in.

• Nate Longshore has a new blog that we hope will someday be as ridiculous and entertaining as Rod Benson’s, but that seems like a longshot.  He’s posted for the past few days though, so hopefully we’ll get a chance to see his thoughts as the season progresses.  Right now Nate has two posts which basically say, "Look how busy my life is!" and really, he does seem quite busy.  I’m surprised he didn’t throw in anything in his schedule about girlfriend/fiance maintenance, since we all know how much time those take.  Anyway, the blog has been added to the sidebar to the right, so be sure to read it as the season progresses.  Or you can wait for us to post something about his thoughts here as well.
• Ted Miller wrote his Pac-10 Notebook a day later than the other conference notebooks at ESPN.com, and he has another fun quote from Jim Harbaugh.

"While it’s just Week 2 of the Jim Harbaugh era, Stanford’s new coach already faces an absolute must-win game against San Jose State. For one, it’s almost certainly the only game this season in which the Cardinal will be favored. Second, last year, the Spartans humiliated their crosstown rivals, 35-34. The Cardinal led by 13 at halftime but couldn’t manage to score after the break, and that was the beginning of the end for second-year coach Walt Harris. And, third, Stanford still hasn’t won a game inside its remodeled stadium. "There’s a lot of significance to this game," Harbaugh said. "This is a rivalry game." Here’s a hint for the Cardinal: Don’t give up 342 yards rushing this time and things might turn out better."

• While you’re sitting there pondering when Stanford’s big rival changed from Cal to San Jose State, I’ve got one more thing for you in a note about the Washington State Cougars, "Terry Mixon was a touted JC All-American safety expected to bolster a thin secondary but his glory never came. It was reported this week he’s transferred to Eastern Washington."  More’s the pity.

A few notes on our Bears, but mostly on the Pac-10 in general.

• Tedford wants to make sure the team realizes, "You can’t let down anything."  I can only hope his speech to the team ended with, "WHOSE DOMICILE?  OUR DOMICILE!"
• Back to back questions from this Bruce Feldman chat earlier this week:

Ralph, Pittsburgh: you think Les Miles would be crazy enough to leave all that talent at LSU for a rebuilding job at Michigan?

 Bruce Feldman: Yes I do. I don’t think Tedford would be crazy though.

---

Chris (Lubbock, TX): How long does Mike Leach have at Texas Tech before a bigger school grabs him up?

 Bruce Feldman: Not sure. He’s a good fit in Lubbock and his personality would be a tricky fit I’m sure for some schools. I could’ve seen him at ASU and I’d love to see him up at Cal if that were to come open, but beyond that I’m not sure. It’s not like Wsahington State is a step up from Tech.

• For what it’s worth, Ragnarok had the greatest take on this when he said,

"I think it’s interesting that Mike Leach, who has a job, is being
mentioned for another job, which is currently filled by someone else,
who might possibly leave for a third job, which is also currently
filled, but may possibly come open soon.

"It’s only September, people!"

• Tom Schneider makes the news for a reason, being named to the AFCA Good Works Team which honors students who are actively involved in community service.  Now let’s hope that spurs him to stop injuring himself before games, although it’s not like Jordan Kay’s been any kind of a slouch in his absence either.
• Todd McShay again reveals himself to be an idiot, by highlighting that our Bears gave up a bunch of points the past two games.  Never mind that almost a quarter of those came in garbage time because our defensive coordinator was a little too enthusiastic about getting the backups some PT.
• The treesitters have made the New York Times.  Nothing you haven’t already heard or read before either here or elsewhere.  Oh man, they name drop People’s Park.  I remember the one time I went there to go play pick-up ball.  I was god awful.  They should have included Brent Musburger’s thoughts on the treesitters.
• Rod Benson blogs about his initial foray to the East Coast and his impressions of New Jersey, the Nets, and Manhattan.  (Sweet.)
• USC DB Josh Pinkard managed to get himself injured for the year - again.  Apparently he’s pretty good, he just hasn’t been on the field much the past two years.  He’s Trent Edwards!
• I lifted this from this past Monday’s Bruce Feldman blog, and it probably isn’t making the guys over at MGoBlog too happy, but three recruits went to last week’s Oregon/Michigan game, and came away wanting to play for the Ducks.
• Lastly, this is your usual weekly reminder to get your picks in ASAP.  I hope to continue my climb up the standings by being thoroughly mediocre.

If you haven’t already heard, the New England Patriots were caught stealing signals.  A few links can be found here, here, and here. Oh, and here.

If you don’t remember, Cal has also been involved in a signal stealing incident.  In 2006 against Tennessee, a Tennessee coach admitted that they knew some of our defensive signals.  That story can be found here. 

In summary, Tennessee claims that they were able to decipher our defensive hand signals and knew what formations we would come out in.  This is not the first incident of possible signal stealing.  A few years ago against Oregon there was some fuss about Oregon stealing our signals.  As we all know, Tedford coached at Oregon and it’s very possible he might have carried over some of the hand signals he used there. 

Although Tedford says that he doubts any signal stealing occurred against Tennessee (in 2006), he has nevertheless taken precautions against signal stealing. 

The Patriots incident deals with stealing defensive signals because the NFL does not allow radio helmets for the defense such as what the QB wears for the offense.  Thus, hand signals must be used to send in the plays on defense.  In college football, no radio helmets are allowed and hand signals must be used on both sides of the ball to send in the play.  Stealing signals is very much a real possibility in college football.   

First let’s talk about offensive signals.  In the first few years of Tedford’s tenure at Cal, if you watched the sidelines while we were on offense, you would have noticed that Cal used two signal men.  The reason for using two signal men is that the other team wouldn’t know who was really sending in the true signals.  Of course, the QB knew.  But now Cal only uses one signal man.  You might ask, how is this an improvement?  Well, even though we only use one signal man now the signal man only signals numbers.  Previously, both signal men would actually send in real hand signals that corresponded with the formation, dropback length, protections, WR routes, etc.  And even though the other team may not know who the real signal man is, they would be still seeing real signals.  If they tried hard enough, they could probably figure out who was the real signal man and then work towards deciphering the hand signals.  But with the new system, all they are seeing are hand signals for numbers.  Ever notice how the QB always looks at his armband in the huddle to call the plays?   That’s because the number that is signaled in corresponds with a numbered play on the armband (there are approximately 150 plays on the armband).  Now, under the current method of offensive signaling, in most situations the opponents will never see any hand signals that actually correspond with anything other than a number. 

Now defense.  Defensive signal stealing defensive is very possible in college football.  Most teams actually signal in hand signs that correspond with the defensive play rather than a number.  If you watch the sidelines while Cal is on defense you’ll see various coaches sending in signals to our defense on the field.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure which coach corresponds with which players – a simple internet search can reveal that.  The next big hurdle is simply deciphering the signals.  For the other team, the process isn’t that complicated.  They can see our signals, watch the play unfold, and see what those signals correspond to.  After a few more plays to cross-check their assumptions, they could easily know what a few of our signals mean.  But even with this extra knowledge, it is pretty tough to change the offensive play after one has already been called (especially in hostile conditions).  Nevertheless, this possibility is becoming more and more threatening with the growing popularity of no-huddle offenses. 

As most of you know, Tennessee utilized the no-huddle offense against us in 2007.  Their offense lines up on the LOS quickly, forcing our defense to quickly line up too.  This quick set-up allows them to diminish the defense’s ability to substitute, as well as mask the play.  With the inability to mask the play, Tennessee coaches can now call an audible, or a different play at the LOS, based on what they see from our defense.  All this of course has to happen before the play clock runs out.  But since the offense is hurrying to the LOS, they have more time than those teams that huddle up. 

Recall that against Tennessee this year, they would go to the line of scrimmage, go under center for a few seconds then look towards their sideline.  They are looking to see if the Tennessee coaches would like to change the play based on what they see from the defense (for another GREAT example of this type of no-huddle offense, watch Appalachian State versus Michigan from two weeks ago). 

Now imagine if Tennessee knew our defensive signals.  They can force our defense to line up quickly and for our coaches to quickly call a defense.  Tennessee will have plenty of time left on the play clock to read those signals, and call an appropriate counter play to our defense.  This can be deadly. 

Protective countermeasures must be established to protect the defense from being exploited.  Thankfully, such preventative countermeasures have been established.  It is becoming more common nowadays for defensive players to also use armbands.  The defensive coaches will often send in a hand signal corresponding to a number, which in turn corresponds with a play on the armband.  This method limits the other team’s ability to steal signals.  Nevertheless, the defense is still at risk.  While armbands are used, there are A LOT less plays on the defensive armbands.  Occasionally, or more frequently than we’d like, hand signals corresponding with the defensive plays are still used and vulnerable to deciphering. 

So while Tedford may not think that any signals were being deciphered by Tennessee or Oregon, he certainly is taking precautions to play it safe.