Local government officials

9,523 Views | 83 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by LMK5
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:58a, 9/13/20
Plan to start Big Ten football Oct. 17 expected to be approvedwww.jsonline.com story sports college 2020/09/13 plan-start...

A Pac 12 "source" and Wilner say it is the governmental officials in California and Oregon that are preventing Pac from joining the Big 10. I guess all the concern about myocarditis and other excuses have gone away with testing advances and it gets down to the real issue. And I can't speak for Oregon, but the COVID rate in Los Angles has flat lined (not gone down) and is down somewhat in the Bay Area depending on the county. OTOH, the LA County Medical Officer said no change in requirements "until after the election." Her words, not mine.

I'm not sure of the implications of all this. Speculating, I would be surprised if the Big 10 can be ready by October 17, and I don't see the Pac going anywhere w/o UCLA and USC being able to play, no less the two Oregon teams. But what immediately comes to mind is this will be politicized, put pressure on the Pac to start as soon after the election if that is what it takes (again, someone from Oregon can describe their situation), may mean no bowl games for the Pac, could hurt conference recruiting and the conferences standing, or could be helpful if bad things happen to players in the other conferences (a scenario no one should desire). That the P5 conferences could not agree to do things uniformly leads to a real mess, and the weak sister Pac may be the victim.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wifeisafurd • 1:03p, 9/13/20

So tired of the politicization... from both sides. To play, I think we need steady (if incremental) diminishing of new cases and hospitalizations in ALL conference areas over a period of several weeks, and an overall positive test rate of close to 5% in those areas. (as well as the rapid-results testing)

Right now, it's going to be hard to practice in the Pacific NW anyway. Hopefully that won't last much longer.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Northside91
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wifeisafurd • 1:20p, 9/13/20
Oregon hillbillies and the swoosh will put up a fight, but I suspect the allies of college athletics (and football in particular) are dwindling to zero in California.

Just let it die, already. It's not worth the trouble at this point, and when you factor in all the pre and post game political games, it's been completely drained of its fun and intended purpose.
Reply Quote
2
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big C • 2:05p, 9/13/20
Big C said:

So tired of the politicization... from both sides. To play, I think we need steady (if incremental) diminishing of new cases and hospitalizations in ALL conference areas over a period of several weeks, and an overall positive test rate of close to 5% in those areas.

Right now, it's going to be hard to practice in the Pacific NW anyway. Hopefully that won't last much longer.

It seems there are two possibilities:

1. The Pac-12 and/or the local authorities where its schools are located are imposing a different standard than the rest of the country (now apparently including the Big 10).

or

2. The COVID situation and risks are materially worse/different in pac-12 localities than other areas. And to be clear, this should be the risks associated with (or arising from) playing football.

The fact that other athletic events are taking place in Pac-12 cities (baseball, NFL, soccer) certainly suggests that it is #1. But it could be that the Pac-12 is unable or unwilling to do what MLB, NFL, and other leagues are doing to be able to play (e.g., testing and other protocols).

Is there a Covid related reason we can play NFL football in Los Angeles and the Bay area but not college football?
Reply Quote
2
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:34p, 9/13/20
Having accurate rapid testing available is a game changer, pun intended. I also noticed that a lot of people on the sidelines of the niner game are wearing masks. I would also assume that having empty stadiums is critical to managing risk.

The biggest question mark is whether the return of cold weather will make a difference in either the spread or severity of the pandemic. With the football season extending through the winter, we could see a shortened season. If we continue to make good progress on the pandemic, it will be good for everyone.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
71Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 2:35p, 9/13/20
BearGoggles said:
Big C said:

So tired of the politicization... from both sides. To play, I think we need steady (if incremental) diminishing of new cases and hospitalizations in ALL conference areas over a period of several weeks, and an overall positive test rate of close to 5% in those areas.

Right now, it's going to be hard to practice in the Pacific NW anyway. Hopefully that won't last much longer.

It seems there are two possibilities:

1. The Pac-12 and/or the local authorities where its schools are located are imposing a different standard than the rest of the country (now apparently including the Big 10).

or

2. The COVID situation and risks are materially worse/different in pac-12 localities than other areas. And to be clear, this should be the risks associated with (or arising from) playing football.

The fact that other athletic events are taking place in Pac-12 cities (baseball, NFL, soccer) certainly suggests that it is #1. But it could be that the Pac-12 is unable or unwilling to do what MLB, NFL, and other leagues are doing to be able to play (e.g., testing and other protocols).

Is there a Covid related reason we can play NFL football in Los Angeles and the Bay area but not college football?
Yes. Pro football is played by adults. College football is played by kids. Kids think they are immortal. Adults know they are not.
Reply Quote
3
OdontoBear66
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 71Bear • 3:03p, 9/13/20
71Bear said:
BearGoggles said:
Big C said:

So tired of the politicization... from both sides. To play, I think we need steady (if incremental) diminishing of new cases and hospitalizations in ALL conference areas over a period of several weeks, and an overall positive test rate of close to 5% in those areas.

Right now, it's going to be hard to practice in the Pacific NW anyway. Hopefully that won't last much longer.

It seems there are two possibilities:

1. The Pac-12 and/or the local authorities where its schools are located are imposing a different standard than the rest of the country (now apparently including the Big 10).

or

2. The COVID situation and risks are materially worse/different in pac-12 localities than other areas. And to be clear, this should be the risks associated with (or arising from) playing football.

The fact that other athletic events are taking place in Pac-12 cities (baseball, NFL, soccer) certainly suggests that it is #1. But it could be that the Pac-12 is unable or unwilling to do what MLB, NFL, and other leagues are doing to be able to play (e.g., testing and other protocols).

Is there a Covid related reason we can play NFL football in Los Angeles and the Bay area but not college football?
Yes. Pro football is played by adults. College football is played by kids. Kids think they are immortal. Adults know they are not.
Pretty loose distinction. A lot of 19-22 year olds are/were in pro sports. I think a better distinction is one is playing for income, the other for passion (leading to possible future income). The former being a choice.
Reply Quote
7
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 71Bear • 3:12p, 9/13/20
71Bear said:
BearGoggles said:
Big C said:

So tired of the politicization... from both sides. To play, I think we need steady (if incremental) diminishing of new cases and hospitalizations in ALL conference areas over a period of several weeks, and an overall positive test rate of close to 5% in those areas.

Right now, it's going to be hard to practice in the Pacific NW anyway. Hopefully that won't last much longer.

It seems there are two possibilities:

1. The Pac-12 and/or the local authorities where its schools are located are imposing a different standard than the rest of the country (now apparently including the Big 10).

or

2. The COVID situation and risks are materially worse/different in pac-12 localities than other areas. And to be clear, this should be the risks associated with (or arising from) playing football.

The fact that other athletic events are taking place in Pac-12 cities (baseball, NFL, soccer) certainly suggests that it is #1. But it could be that the Pac-12 is unable or unwilling to do what MLB, NFL, and other leagues are doing to be able to play (e.g., testing and other protocols).

Is there a Covid related reason we can play NFL football in Los Angeles and the Bay area but not college football?
Yes. Pro football is played by adults. College football is played by kids. Kids think they are immortal. Adults know they are not.
There also is a regulatory difference, which is somewhat in line with that thinking. Colleges are treated as schools, including aspects of schools, such as sports. They had their own set of rules, which gave a lot of discretion to local authorities. But not surprisingly, in LA County, college football is being the same as flag junior high school football by health regulators, in the one size fits all when it comes to rules (also known as the lazy regulator rule or the we are understaffed rule, depending on your perspective). We have had this discussion on the insider board for some time, wondering what will it take to change that? Probably political heat. Not sure SC controls LA like it used to.
Reply Quote
3
LunchTime
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 71Bear • 3:37p, 9/13/20
71Bear said:
BearGoggles said:
Big C said:

So tired of the politicization... from both sides. To play, I think we need steady (if incremental) diminishing of new cases and hospitalizations in ALL conference areas over a period of several weeks, and an overall positive test rate of close to 5% in those areas.

Right now, it's going to be hard to practice in the Pacific NW anyway. Hopefully that won't last much longer.

It seems there are two possibilities:

1. The Pac-12 and/or the local authorities where its schools are located are imposing a different standard than the rest of the country (now apparently including the Big 10).

or

2. The COVID situation and risks are materially worse/different in pac-12 localities than other areas. And to be clear, this should be the risks associated with (or arising from) playing football.

The fact that other athletic events are taking place in Pac-12 cities (baseball, NFL, soccer) certainly suggests that it is #1. But it could be that the Pac-12 is unable or unwilling to do what MLB, NFL, and other leagues are doing to be able to play (e.g., testing and other protocols).

Is there a Covid related reason we can play NFL football in Los Angeles and the Bay area but not college football?
Yes. Pro football is played by adults. College football is played by kids. Kids think they are immortal. Adults know they are not.
anyone under 70 is a kid.
Reply Quote
3
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LunchTime • 3:43p, 9/13/20
LunchTime said:
71Bear said:
BearGoggles said:
Big C said:

So tired of the politicization... from both sides. To play, I think we need steady (if incremental) diminishing of new cases and hospitalizations in ALL conference areas over a period of several weeks, and an overall positive test rate of close to 5% in those areas.

Right now, it's going to be hard to practice in the Pacific NW anyway. Hopefully that won't last much longer.

It seems there are two possibilities:

1. The Pac-12 and/or the local authorities where its schools are located are imposing a different standard than the rest of the country (now apparently including the Big 10).

or

2. The COVID situation and risks are materially worse/different in pac-12 localities than other areas. And to be clear, this should be the risks associated with (or arising from) playing football.

The fact that other athletic events are taking place in Pac-12 cities (baseball, NFL, soccer) certainly suggests that it is #1. But it could be that the Pac-12 is unable or unwilling to do what MLB, NFL, and other leagues are doing to be able to play (e.g., testing and other protocols).

Is there a Covid related reason we can play NFL football in Los Angeles and the Bay area but not college football?
Yes. Pro football is played by adults. College football is played by kids. Kids think they are immortal. Adults know they are not.
anyone under 70 is a kid.
much appreciated. If only my body agreed.
Reply Quote
4
2701RidgeRoad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:28p, 9/13/20

There is no risk free world. We do not know everything that will be known about the SARS CoV-2 risks, but we know there were absolutely outrageous, scaremongering projections used by Governor Newsom and the California Department of Public Health to support the shutdown of California business and school activity , e.g., on March 18, Newsom wrote that in eight weeks his projections showed that 25.5 million Californians would be ill with COVID 19 and presumably 250k Californians dead.

We should not rely on expert guidance from anyone who did not immediately object to those March 18 projections. That is the first question to ask of anyone who offers analysis and advice today about a sensible public health response to the risks presented by COVID 19 and other risks.

It seems very likely that the years lives lost (YLL) from COVID 19 will be lower than for periods of recent severe influenza outbreaks.

Some sensible reading:

8/21/20 "Don't Let Dubious Science Cancel College Football."
Anish Koka, MD

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/936098_print

  • Today, (9/10) CDC excess deaths to 29 Aug. are 14% below baseline as predicted in July. This is the first time since March that delay-corrected death data fell below baseline. Excess death in the Mar.-Aug. 20 COVID-19 season may be over. A huge milestone!

Michael Levitt
@MLevitt_NP2013
Stanford Prof. of Biophysics, Cambridge PhD and DSc, 2013 Chemistry Nobel Laureate (complex systems), FRS & US National Academy member,



Go to work. Go back to school. Play football.

Be not afraid.




Reply Quote
2
jy1988
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:30p, 9/13/20
If there is a "winter wave" of CV-19 combined with a bad flu season, it might be hard to know what is safe. So, imagine that the season is rebooted, and halfway in, it gets just as bad as it was last April-May.
Reply Quote
2
6956bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jy1988 • 4:52p, 9/13/20
jy1988 said:
If there is a "winter wave" of CV-19 combined with a bad flu season, it might be hard to know what is safe. So, imagine that the season is rebooted, and halfway in, it gets just as bad as it was last April-May.
There are always "what ifs" to consider. But if they get approval to play they need to try and play IMO. If the virus comes back it does. Not playing if the other conferences do is a sure way to set the conference back significantly. There is a risk associated with playing no doubt. I understand the reason for not playing, but players and their families will not be happy if they could but do not.

Reply Quote
1
RBGBerkeley
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 2701RidgeRoad • 5:03p, 9/13/20
I believe Newsom's letter to Donald Trump made that projection IF aggressive preventative measures weren't taken by the state of California.

SacBee on Newsom's March projections

Curious if you feel the state should not have taken aggressive steps back then? Also, if someone had told you in early March that 200k Americans would die because of the virus within 7 months, would you have called that scare tactics or fearmongering?

Reply Quote
6
2701RidgeRoad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RBGBerkeley • 5:08p, 9/13/20
RBGBerkeley said:
I believe Newsom's letter to Donald Trump made that projection IF aggressive preventative measures weren't taken by the state of California.

SacBee on Newsom's March projections

Curious if you feel the state should not have taken aggressive steps back then? Also, if someone had told you in early March that 200k Americans would die because of the virus within 7 months, would you have called that scare tactics or fearmongering?

The proponents claimed that with aggressive measures, only 50% of the infections and deaths would occur. Those are number in California only. Cut those numbers by 50% and the projections were outrageous. It is not rational to listen to "experts" who did not immediately reject those projections. Conventional public health measures would have been sufficient.


Reply Quote
3
6956bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wifeisafurd • 5:12p, 9/13/20
wifeisafurd said:
Plan to start Big Ten football Oct. 17 expected to be approvedwww.jsonline.com story sports college 2020/09/13 plan-start...

A Pac 12 "source" and Wilner say it is the governmental officials in California and Oregon that are preventing Pac from joining the Big 10. I guess all the concern about myocarditis and other excuses have gone away with testing advances and it gets down to the real issue. And I can't speak for Oregon, but the COVID rate in Los Angles has flat lined (not gone down) and is down somewhat in the Bay Area depending on the county. OTOH, the LA County Medical Officer said no change in requirements "until after the election." Her words, not mine.

I'm not sure of the implications of all this. Speculating, I would be surprised if the Big 10 can be ready by October 17, and I don't see the Pac going anywhere w/o UCLA and USC being able to play, no less the two Oregon teams. But what immediately comes to mind is this will be politicized, put pressure on the Pac to start as soon after the election if that is what it takes (again, someone from Oregon can describe their situation), may mean no bowl games for the Pac, could hurt conference recruiting and the conferences standing, or could be helpful if bad things happen to players in the other conferences (a scenario no one should desire). That the P5 conferences could not agree to do things uniformly leads to a real mess, and the weak sister Pac may be the victim.
I was in Oregon over the Labor day weekend and the local sports folks said Kate Brown (Governor) indicated that she would not stand in the way of playing if the balance of the conference was ok to play. The same scenario cannot be said for California. She said she would not be the reason and would not put the Oregon programs at a competitive disadvantage.

If the other conferences are able to play relatively unscathed it will reflect very poorly on the P12. I am not an advocate for recklessness but it seems there is a way to play with minimal risk. There will never be no risk. if that is the standard there will be no games.

If what you say is true about the LA County Medical officer it will be Spring or bust. Although It would not surprise me to see an 8 or 10 team conference schedule. It seems hard to imagine the P12 going forward without the California (LA) programs but would not shock me. The lack of uniformity in the P5 could very well bleed down into the P12. I doubt Cal or Stanford would vote to play without their LA brothers, but the rest of the conference likely would.

As for the Big 10. I expect them to approve a plan to play and October 17 seems a bit early but I think they could make it work.
Reply Quote
2
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RBGBerkeley • 5:12p, 9/13/20
RBGBerkeley said:
I believe Newsom's letter to Donald Trump made that projection IF aggressive preventative measures weren't taken by the state of California.

SacBee on Newsom's March projections

Curious if you feel the state should not have taken aggressive steps back then? Also, if someone had told you in early March that 200k Americans would die because of the virus within 7 months, would you have called that scare tactics or fearmongering?


And those 200,000 deaths are WITH basically a two-month shutdown. Otherwise, it would've been quite a bit more.
Reply Quote
5
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:27p, 9/13/20
If it's just LA County, couldn't UCLA and USC play at Qualcomm or whatever it's called now? There won't be fans so the location isn't that important.
Reply Quote
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 6:10p, 9/13/20
Unit2Sucks said:
If it's just LA County, couldn't UCLA and USC play at Qualcomm or whatever it's called now? There won't be fans so the location isn't that important.
Having read the LA college rules when they came out, the rules apply to off-campus large gatherings, so arguably no, though it is hard to believe LA would assert jurisdiction over conduct in San Diego. San Diego has far fewer per capita cases than most SoCal counties, so I honestly don't think anyone in government will complain if SC moves the team down there.

Interesting the Oregon governor basically said let the schools decide.

Maybe this is a local bias, but I just don't see the the Pac 12 saying adios to the California schools for the season.
Reply Quote
RBGBerkeley
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 2701RidgeRoad • 7:50p, 9/13/20
2701RidgeRoad said:
RBGBerkeley said:
I believe Newsom's letter to Donald Trump made that projection IF aggressive preventative measures weren't taken by the state of California.

SacBee on Newsom's March projections

Curious if you feel the state should not have taken aggressive steps back then? Also, if someone had told you in early March that 200k Americans would die because of the virus within 7 months, would you have called that scare tactics or fearmongering?

The proponents claimed that with aggressive measures, only 50% of the infections and deaths would occur. Those are number in California only. Cut those numbers by 50% and the projections were outrageous. It is not rational to listen to "experts" who did not immediately reject those projections. Conventional public health measures would have been sufficient.


How are you defining proponents? The government officials later modified those projections - LA Times on more optimistic projections in April

Is your point that they and Fauci and other scientists should have been "right" from the very beginning on all aspects of assessing COVID? And if their initial projections and recommendation are later changed, should we no longer listen to them? Are scientists and officials not allowed to iterate? They are expected to be immaculately correct immediately OR they shouldn't say anything?

And if you're an official and living in uncertainty and watching Italy's hospitals overrun and doctors dying in large numbers, would you rather err on the side of being overly pessimistic or overly optimistic (Trump was the latter)?

Reply Quote
2
Pittstop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jy1988 • 7:54p, 9/13/20
It's feasible that since so many Americans are wearing masks, and washing their hands now, that we may be also protecting ourselves, and each other, from the flu virus as well. As long as we continue hand washing and mask wearing.
Reply Quote
2 edits
LMK5
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:09p, 9/13/20
The testing positivity rate in the State of California is 3.8% (14 day average): https://update.covid19.ca.gov/

If the BIG10 plays, it will make the Pac-12 look weaker, something the conference is already battling. Why wouldn't Cal and UCLA want to show the way in protcols and innovation with respect to managing Covid? Why let the Florida States and Georgia Techs of the world show that they can forge ahead with a plan in place? Does the Pac-12 really want to be the one and only conference that watches the big kids play with face pressed against the chain link fence?
The truth lies somewhere between CNN and Fox.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
NVBear78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:26p, 9/13/20

If the PAC-12 doesn't start play in conjunction with the Big 10 do we even matter? Would anyone outside our fans watch us with no Rose Bowl in play?

Don't get me wrong, I will watch and support our Bears no matter what. But I don't want to see our team and league harmed by what I can only guess are politically motivated Governors.


The whole country and whole world are playing sports again, why not the PAC-12? Watched HS, College, and NFL football this weekend not to mention the NBA, MLB and US open tennis.

And yes there are Covid positives like the Giants baseball team just experienced but nobody is dying and they were back at it again today.

Excuse me but I never heard the Governor explain how and why his Lock Down plan switched from "flattening the curve" in the ICU to "no new cases even for the young" and forever? Why are we allowing people in Government who don't have our back such control?


Edit to Moderators: I am not trying to be overtly political or divisive. It's just that the subject of playing football again is being governed by politicians so they become part of the discussion.
Reply Quote
6
hanky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:57p, 9/13/20
Yes, because when a 22 year old college student turns 23 and graduates from college, he magically becomes an adult.

Yes, because an 18 year old is mature enough to join the military and kill people, but he's too immature to decide whether or not to play college football.

The logic here is extraordinary.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 10:59p, 9/13/20
Unit2Sucks said:
If it's just LA County, couldn't UCLA and USC play at Qualcomm or whatever it's called now? There won't be fans so the location isn't that important.
What about practice? I believe basically the same restrictions apply to practices as well.

If schools can't practice at their regular facilities, then I don't think they have the resources to permanently move all personnel/activities for an extended period. Could Cal pay for that and would it make financial sense to do so?
Reply Quote
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wifeisafurd • 11:04p, 9/13/20
wifeisafurd said:
71Bear said:
BearGoggles said:
Big C said:

So tired of the politicization... from both sides. To play, I think we need steady (if incremental) diminishing of new cases and hospitalizations in ALL conference areas over a period of several weeks, and an overall positive test rate of close to 5% in those areas.

Right now, it's going to be hard to practice in the Pacific NW anyway. Hopefully that won't last much longer.

It seems there are two possibilities:

1. The Pac-12 and/or the local authorities where its schools are located are imposing a different standard than the rest of the country (now apparently including the Big 10).

or

2. The COVID situation and risks are materially worse/different in pac-12 localities than other areas. And to be clear, this should be the risks associated with (or arising from) playing football.

The fact that other athletic events are taking place in Pac-12 cities (baseball, NFL, soccer) certainly suggests that it is #1. But it could be that the Pac-12 is unable or unwilling to do what MLB, NFL, and other leagues are doing to be able to play (e.g., testing and other protocols).

Is there a Covid related reason we can play NFL football in Los Angeles and the Bay area but not college football?
Yes. Pro football is played by adults. College football is played by kids. Kids think they are immortal. Adults know they are not.
There also is a regulatory difference, which is somewhat in line with that thinking. Colleges are treated as schools, including aspects of schools, such as sports. They had their own set of rules, which gave a lot of discretion to local authorities. But not surprisingly, in LA County, college football is being the same as flag junior high school football by health regulators, in the one size fits all when it comes to rules (also known as the lazy regulator rule or the we are understaffed rule, depending on your perspective). We have had this discussion on the insider board for some time, wondering what will it take to change that? Probably political heat. Not sure SC controls LA like it used to.
From what I can see, no one controls Garcetti or Barbara Ferrer - the lack of accountability is astounding.
Reply Quote
2
upsetof86
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:42p, 9/13/20
"Local government officials" as a relevant topic/headline posted by a leading contributor on our recreational sports board is where we are at today.
Reply Quote
3
wvitbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:08a, 9/14/20
Not to change the subject but how could the schools of Washington, Oregon and California play football with this air/
Reply Quote
1
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wvitbear • 9:55a, 9/14/20
wvitbear said:
Not to change the subject but how could the schools of Washington, Oregon and California play football with this air/
No doubt that all the games would have been canceled.
Reply Quote
LMK5
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 10:20a, 9/14/20
sycasey said:
wvitbear said:
Not to change the subject but how could the schools of Washington, Oregon and California play football with this air/
No doubt that all the games would have been canceled.
Probably true, but again, this is a big missed opportunity for the Pac-12 to have gained some respect and positive press by displaying some real innovation and yes, courage in showing the rest of the country that we don't have to repeat the actions of 1918; that we can employ 21st century science and common sense protocols in order to make life as normal as it possibly can be. We didn't have to let the ACC, SEC, and Big12 take the lead while we sit on our hands. Larry Scott's announcement on the rapid testing agreement is a step in the right direction, but if we don't take the next big step and get on the field, it's just another empty press conference.
The truth lies somewhere between CNN and Fox.
Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LMK5 • 10:23a, 9/14/20
LMK5 said:
sycasey said:
wvitbear said:
Not to change the subject but how could the schools of Washington, Oregon and California play football with this air/
No doubt that all the games would have been canceled.
Probably true, but again, this is a big missed opportunity for the Pac-12 to have gained some respect and positive press by displaying some real innovation and yes, courage in showing the rest of the country that we don't have to repeat the actions of 1918; that we can employ 21st century science and common sense protocols in order to make life as normal as it possibly can be. We didn't have to let the ACC, SEC, and Big12 take the lead while we sit on our hands. Larry Scott's announcement on the rapid testing agreement is a step in the right direction, but if we don't take the next big step and get on the field, it's just another empty press conference.
Honestly, I don't think any conference showed any capacity to "lead" on this issue. The ones currently playing just decided to take a bigger gamble. They have no great plan either.
Reply Quote
4
LMK5
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 10:39a, 9/14/20
sycasey said:
LMK5 said:
sycasey said:
wvitbear said:
Not to change the subject but how could the schools of Washington, Oregon and California play football with this air/
No doubt that all the games would have been canceled.
Probably true, but again, this is a big missed opportunity for the Pac-12 to have gained some respect and positive press by displaying some real innovation and yes, courage in showing the rest of the country that we don't have to repeat the actions of 1918; that we can employ 21st century science and common sense protocols in order to make life as normal as it possibly can be. We didn't have to let the ACC, SEC, and Big12 take the lead while we sit on our hands. Larry Scott's announcement on the rapid testing agreement is a step in the right direction, but if we don't take the next big step and get on the field, it's just another empty press conference.
Honestly, I don't think any conference showed any capacity to "lead" on this issue. The ones currently playing just decided to take a bigger gamble. They have no great plan either.
I agree. But why are we always the ones to not do something? Not have sports. Not have in-person classes. Why are the other schools willing to get out front and take that first step? Are the administrators at Georgia Tech, Notre Dame, Wake Forest and other leading universities known for their recklessness? Why can't it ever be us that crawls out of the foxhole first?
The truth lies somewhere between CNN and Fox.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LMK5 • 10:47a, 9/14/20
LMK5 said:
sycasey said:
LMK5 said:
sycasey said:
wvitbear said:
Not to change the subject but how could the schools of Washington, Oregon and California play football with this air/
No doubt that all the games would have been canceled.
Probably true, but again, this is a big missed opportunity for the Pac-12 to have gained some respect and positive press by displaying some real innovation and yes, courage in showing the rest of the country that we don't have to repeat the actions of 1918; that we can employ 21st century science and common sense protocols in order to make life as normal as it possibly can be. We didn't have to let the ACC, SEC, and Big12 take the lead while we sit on our hands. Larry Scott's announcement on the rapid testing agreement is a step in the right direction, but if we don't take the next big step and get on the field, it's just another empty press conference.
Honestly, I don't think any conference showed any capacity to "lead" on this issue. The ones currently playing just decided to take a bigger gamble. They have no great plan either.
I agree. But why are we always the ones to not do something. Not have sports. Not have in-person classes. Why are the other schools willing to get out front and take that first step? Are the administrators at Georgia Tech, Notre Dame, Wake Forest and other leading universities known for their recklessness? Why can't it ever be us that crawls out of the foxhole first?
Well, for one thing the local governments in California have kept up much tighter restrictions which tends to tie the hands of the conference. Can you play a season without LA and Bay Area teams? Probably not. Some of those other states aren't in the same situation.

I'm not sure how to define that we are "always" the ones to not do something? You're saying Pac-12 schools never lead on anything at all? That doesn't seem right. I would expect CA to take longer to crawl out of the foxhole because our state was one of the hardest and earliest hit with COVID.
Reply Quote
1
71Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to NVBear78 • 11:03a, 9/14/20
NVBear78 said:

If the PAC-12 doesn't start play in conjunction with the Big 10 do we even matter? Would anyone outside our fans watch us with no Rose Bowl in play?

Don't get me wrong, I will watch and support our Bears no matter what. But I don't want to see our team and league harmed by what I can only guess are politically motivated Governors.


The whole country and whole world are playing sports again, why not the PAC-12? Watched HS, College, and NFL football this weekend not to mention the NBA, MLB and US open tennis.

And yes there are Covid positives like the Giants baseball team just experienced but nobody is dying and they were back at it again today.

Excuse me but I never heard the Governor explain how and why his Lock Down plan switched from "flattening the curve" in the ICU to "no new cases even for the young" and forever? Why are we allowing people in Government who don't have our back such control?


Edit to Moderators: I am not trying to be overtly political or divisive. It's just that the subject of playing football again is being governed by politicians so they become part of the discussion.
One correction, 78...

The player on the Giants received a false positive test. That is why they were able to play yesterday. Had the test been a true positive, they would not have played on Sunday.
Reply Quote
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LMK5 • 11:09a, 9/14/20
LMK5 said:
sycasey said:
LMK5 said:
sycasey said:
wvitbear said:
Not to change the subject but how could the schools of Washington, Oregon and California play football with this air/
No doubt that all the games would have been canceled.
Probably true, but again, this is a big missed opportunity for the Pac-12 to have gained some respect and positive press by displaying some real innovation and yes, courage in showing the rest of the country that we don't have to repeat the actions of 1918; that we can employ 21st century science and common sense protocols in order to make life as normal as it possibly can be. We didn't have to let the ACC, SEC, and Big12 take the lead while we sit on our hands. Larry Scott's announcement on the rapid testing agreement is a step in the right direction, but if we don't take the next big step and get on the field, it's just another empty press conference.
Honestly, I don't think any conference showed any capacity to "lead" on this issue. The ones currently playing just decided to take a bigger gamble. They have no great plan either.
I agree. But why are we always the ones to not do something? Not have sports. Not have in-person classes. Why are the other schools willing to get out front and take that first step? Are the administrators at Georgia Tech, Notre Dame, Wake Forest and other leading universities known for their recklessness? Why can't it ever be us that crawls out of the foxhole first?
LOL at protecting public healthy being considered "not do something." Is anyone surprised that the SEC is ignoring public health implications? When you look at the picture below - what do you take away from it?

The Big10 and Pac-12 were leaders and took an admittedly cautious approach given all the uncertainty, as well as the inability, at the time the decision was made, to adequately test the players. That last part has changed (they now have daily rapid testing capability like the pro leagues) which may very well lead to a change in outcome. But your entire position on this matter is tone-deaf. You are presupposing that public health is immaterial.

Reply Quote
2
Last Page
Page 1 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.