https://247sports.com/college/stanford/Article/Stanford-Emerging-As-Lead-Dissenter-On-Pac-12-Football-Return-151726326/

Find a new rival.

I told you this would happen.

If the Fraud does not want to play, there is nothing we can do about it. We will lose a home game, however.

Furd trying to take the high road?? LIke their pampered athletes aren't treated any differently than the pampered students?? Actually, they don't want another losing season, so why not punt now??

From the Bootleg:

"Details about Stanford's communication with both the league and its own players suggest that the Cardinal does have concerns about its athletes' health in playing a football season, but perhaps the main tenet of Stanford's objection is the matter of amateurism. The argument is that football players, as student-athletes, should not receive preferential treatment over other students and in this case, very simply, be allowed on campus to participate in a university activity when other students are not."

Utah will play and start sooner regardless of what the Pac does.
USC if necessary will play outside the conference, but will play.
Cal and UCLA lukewarmly agree with Stanford, but both schools have given preference to players already such as on campus housing, so unless Stanford compromises, their support is expected to wane.
No discussion of other schools.

There is hope that a few days and the initiation of the Quidel daily COVID-19 testing Stafnord's health objections will be resolved.

There is a strange and lengthy discussion about #WeAreUnited and Stanford's threats to leave the conference and Go Ivy. The inference seems to be that acceding to player demands to play will somehow help bring about changes to amateur status (pay for play and labor union) that Furd will never accept. I have no better way to explain the discussion so go over there and tell me what you think.

The author said that he expects that at the next Pac CEO meeting the concept of leaving Furd behind will be discussed.

Stay tuned, things are no doubt evolving.

oskidunker said:

---

If the Fraud does not want to play, there is nothing we can do about it. We will lose a home game, however.

---

And a game in which we would have been favored.

wifeisafurd said:

---

From the Bootleg:

"Details about Stanford's communication with both the league and its own players suggest that the Cardinal does have concerns about its athletes' health in playing a football season, but perhaps the main tenet of Stanford's objection is the matter of amateurism. The argument is that football players, as student-athletes, should not receive preferential treatment over other students and in this case, very simply, be allowed on campus to participate in a university activity when other students are not."

Utah will play and start sooner regardless of what the Pac does.
USC if necessary will play outside the conference, but will play.
Cal and UCLA lukewarmly agree with Stanford, but both schools have given preference to players already such as on campus housing, so unless Stanford compromises, their support is expected to wane.
No discussion of other schools.

There is hope that a few days and the initiation of the Quidel daily COVID-19 testing Stafnord's health objections will be resolved.

There is a strange and lengthy discussion about #WeAreUnited and Stanford's threats to leave the conference and Go Ivy. The inference seems to be that acceding to player demands to play will somehow help bring about changes to amateur status (pay for play and labor union) that Furd will never accept. I have no better way to explain the discussion so go over there and tell me what you think.

The author said that he expects that at the next Pac CEO meeting the concept of leaving Furd behind will be discussed.

Stay tuned, things are no doubt evolving.

---

I'm sure they meant leaving Stanford behind for this year, but it would be really interesting if Stanford just chooses to leave the conference and Div-1 football altogether.

It would suck to lose the rival, and the history but it'd probably help as Cal then becomes the unquestioned school for the region, and the more academically inclined players that also have big-level football dreams have one less option which would help Cal's recruiting. From a conference perspective, there aren't any real good replacement school options, so I wonder if the conference simply becomes the Pac-11, and the two teams with the best record play each other in the championship game akin to the Big-12.

Maybe get Notre Dame to replace Stanford with Cal for their annual bay area trip.

wifeisafurd said:

---

From the Bootleg:

"Details about Stanford's communication with both the league and its own players suggest that the Cardinal does have concerns about its athletes' health in playing a football season, but perhaps the main tenet of Stanford's objection is the matter of amateurism. The argument is that football players, as student-athletes, should not receive preferential treatment over other students and in this case, very simply, be allowed on campus to participate in a university activity when other students are not."

Utah will play and start sooner regardless of what the Pac does.
USC if necessary will play outside the conference, but will play.
Cal and UCLA lukewarmly agree with Stanford, but both schools have given preference to players already such as on campus housing, so unless Stanford compromises, their support is expected to wane.
No discussion of other schools.

There is hope that a few days and the initiation of the Quidel daily COVID-19 testing Stafnord's health objections will be resolved.

There is a strange and lengthy discussion about #WeAreUnited and Stanford's threats to leave the conference and Go Ivy. The inference seems to be that acceding to player demands to play will somehow help bring about changes to amateur status (pay for play and labor union) that Furd will never accept. I have no better way to explain the discussion so go over there and tell me what you think.

The author said that he expects that at the next Pac CEO meeting the concept of leaving Furd behind will be discussed.

Stay tuned, things are no doubt evolving.

---

I love the meaningless threats from some in the conference (see Utah and SC). Much like the big Ten members who suggested (after the August vote) they would seek games outside the conference, any P12 member that makes kind of noise will receive a note from the Commissioner - if you want to play outside conference agreements, you will be dismissed from the conference (that shut down the dissidents in the B10 and will do likewise in the P12). In fact, I believe there will be an agreement soon that begins the schedule on Nov 7th and all conference members will adhere to whatever accord is reached. Just an opinion.......

golden sloth said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

From the Bootleg:

"Details about Stanford's communication with both the league and its own players suggest that the Cardinal does have concerns about its athletes' health in playing a football season, but perhaps the main tenet of Stanford's objection is the matter of amateurism. The argument is that football players, as student-athletes, should not receive preferential treatment over other students and in this case, very simply, be allowed on campus to participate in a university activity when other students are not."

Utah will play and start sooner regardless of what the Pac does.
USC if necessary will play outside the conference, but will play.
Cal and UCLA lukewarmly agree with Stanford, but both schools have given preference to players already such as on campus housing, so unless Stanford compromises, their support is expected to wane.
No discussion of other schools.

There is hope that a few days and the initiation of the Quidel daily COVID-19 testing Stafnord's health objections will be resolved.

There is a strange and lengthy discussion about #WeAreUnited and Stanford's threats to leave the conference and Go Ivy. The inference seems to be that acceding to player demands to play will somehow help bring about changes to amateur status (pay for play and labor union) that Furd will never accept. I have no better way to explain the discussion so go over there and tell me what you think.

The author said that he expects that at the next Pac CEO meeting the concept of leaving Furd behind will be discussed.

Stay tuned, things are no doubt evolving.

---

I'm sure they meant leaving Stanford behind for this year, but it would be really interesting if Stanford just chooses to leave the conference and Div-1 football altogether.

It would suck to lose the rival, and the history but it'd probably help as Cal then becomes the unquestioned school for the region, and the more academically inclined players that also have big-level football dreams have one less option which would help Cal's recruiting. From a conference perspective, there aren't any real good replacement school options, so I wonder if the conference simply becomes the Pac-11, and the two teams with the best record play each other in the championship game akin to the Big-12.

Maybe get Notre Dame to replace Stanford with Cal for their annual bay area trip.

---

The ND-Stanford series ends after the 2024 season.

And it evolves further. Wilner reports that 6 teams will play on October 31 (USC, Oregon plus WA, AZ and MTN schools) and that the only team not ready to play on Oct. 31 is UCLA.

LA Times writer disputed the comment on UCLA not being ready (seems schools now talk through the local writers).

247 say Furd is no longer concerned about health issues, but preferential treatment of athletes to get testing, and that all students should be tested and players should not be allowed to live on campuses, which may be a #weareunited issue.

This all sounds like posturing and that some sort of strange deal is being formulated. It also is your dysfunctional family, all out in the open. Enjoy.

wifeisafurd said:

---

And it evolves further. Wilner reports that 6 teams will play on October 31 (USC, Oregon plus WA, AZ and MTN schools) and that the only team not ready to play on Oct. 31 is UCLA.

LA Times writer disputed the comment on UCLA not being ready (seems schools now talk through the local writers).

247 say Furd is no longer concerned about health issues, but preferential treatment of athletes to get testing, and that all students should be tested and players should not be allowed to live on campuses, which may be a #weareunited issue.

This all sounds like posturing and that some sort of strange deal is being formulated. It also is your dysfunctional family, all out in the open. Enjoy.

---

This season is already defined to go in the books with an asterisk for a variety of reasons: Star players opting out, schedules truncated or pocked with cancellations, the inevitable loss of some staff or player personnel to the virus. If LSJU wants to join the Ivy League and sit out the fall, frankly I don't care. In fact, while I'd rather have college football to watch, I 'd be only mildly disgruntled if they shut the whole thing down for the duration.

This is a very sad situation.

We all seemed to believe, at one point, that students had to be on campus, in attendance at games for college football to go forward.

I strongly support that position because it is essential to the ethic and mission of college football. As football players, we are students, not separate and apart from our classmates or other Cal athletes. The commitment to a college community is torn asunder by the Pac 12 schemes currently discussed.

Stanford is correct to remind us that "amateurism" is essential. College sports is part of a larger, noble enterprise.

The great sadness, from my perspective, is that students and faculty should be on campus and all fall sports should be played. Cal should have started playing football, and I should be in the north end zone watching them play.

Given their history, they should either drop football or build a yet smaller stadium to house chariot races.

"STANFORD TRADITION: In the first Rose Bowl, in 1902, Stanford quit when the score was 49-0 for Michigan in the fourth quarter, so the rugby team was only following the school tradition when its coach forfeited the 2001 game against Cal and refused to schedule the Bears...."-unknown attribution

You all know about the rugby wimp out, but here is more on the inaugural Rose Bowl as the West was represented by Snodfart.

The rout/forfeit almost killed the Rose Bowl permanently.

"Michigan routed Stanford, 49-0, prompting the football contest to be replaced with Roman-style chariot races inspired by the literary classic Ben-Hur. Football was permanently reinstated as part of the Tournament's traditions in 1916."--https://tournamentofroses.com/about/rose-bowl-game-history/

"In the end, Michigan ran away with the game, 49-0. (Using modern scoring rules, the score would have been 55-0.) With eight minutes left on the clock, Fisher approached the Wolverines' bench and offered to concede defeat. Michigan captain Hugh White granted Fisher his wish for mercy."-- http://www.espn.com/abcsports/bcs/rose/s/1902.html

2701RidgeRoad said:

---

This is a very sad situation.

We all seemed to believe, at one point, that students had to be on campus, in attendance at games for college football to go forward.

I strongly support that position because it is essential to the ethic and mission of college football. As football players, we are students, not separate and apart from our classmates or other Cal athletes. The commitment to a college community is torn asunder by the Pac 12 schemes currently discussed.

Stanford is correct to remind us that "amateurism" is essential. College sports is part of a larger, noble enterprise.

The great sadness, from my perspective, is that students and faculty should be on campus and all fall sports should be played. Cal should have started playing football, and I should be in the north end zone watching them play.

---

College sports is not part of a larger, noble enterprise. It is a multi-billion dollar industry. There is nothing noble about college sports. They are nothing more than a vehicle to provide entertainment to the masses and advertising dollars to the media.

wifeisafurd said:

---

From the Bootleg:

"Details about Stanford's communication with both the league and its own players suggest that the Cardinal does have concerns about its athletes' health in playing a football season, but perhaps the main tenet of Stanford's objection is the matter of amateurism. The argument is that football players, as student-athletes, should not receive preferential treatment over other students and in this case, very simply, be allowed on campus to participate in a university activity when other students are not."

Utah will play and start sooner regardless of what the Pac does.
USC if necessary will play outside the conference, but will play.
Cal and UCLA lukewarmly agree with Stanford, but both schools have given preference to players already such as on campus housing, so unless Stanford compromises, their support is expected to wane.
No discussion of other schools.

There is hope that a few days and the initiation of the Quidel daily COVID-19 testing Stafnord's health objections will be resolved.

There is a strange and lengthy discussion about #WeAreUnited and Stanford's threats to leave the conference and Go Ivy. The inference seems to be that acceding to player demands to play will somehow help bring about changes to amateur status (pay for play and labor union) that Furd will never accept. I have no better way to explain the discussion so go over there and tell me what you think.

The author said that he expects that at the next Pac CEO meeting the concept of leaving Furd behind will be discussed.

Stay tuned, things are no doubt evolving.

---

I am never one to miss a chance to bash Stanford, but they have a point. It is hard to make the argument that playing football is safer than going to class and resuming normal activities with proper precautions. It is hard to understand the argument you make to students that they don't get a normal education, but football gets to go on because we want television money and our alums want to watch games on television.

Whatever the decision, it should be for the whole campus. Keeping students off campus but allowing athletes on campus is bullshyte. These aren't football teams with universities attached.

I just heard De Blasio say they are opening some public schools in New York City now. Can't we get some Pac-12 Football going!

wifeisafurd said:

---

From the Bootleg:

"Details about Stanford's communication with both the league and its own players suggest that the Cardinal does have concerns about its athletes' health in playing a football season, but perhaps the main tenet of Stanford's objection is the matter of amateurism. The argument is that football players, as student-athletes, should not receive preferential treatment over other students and in this case, very simply, be allowed on campus to participate in a university activity when other students are not."

Utah will play and start sooner regardless of what the Pac does.
USC if necessary will play outside the conference, but will play.
Cal and UCLA lukewarmly agree with Stanford, but both schools have given preference to players already such as on campus housing, so unless Stanford compromises, their support is expected to wane.
No discussion of other schools.

There is hope that a few days and the initiation of the Quidel daily COVID-19 testing Stafnord's health objections will be resolved.

There is a strange and lengthy discussion about #WeAreUnited and Stanford's threats to leave the conference and Go Ivy. The inference seems to be that acceding to player demands to play will somehow help bring about changes to amateur status (pay for play and labor union) that Furd will never accept. I have no better way to explain the discussion so go over there and tell me what you think.

The author said that he expects that at the next Pac CEO meeting the concept of leaving Furd behind will be discussed.

Stay tuned, things are no doubt evolving.

---

There is zero chance that the Ivy League would be interested in adding Stanford. The travel costs would be prohibitive.

71Bear said:

---

2701RidgeRoad said:

---

This is a very sad situation.

We all seemed to believe, at one point, that students had to be on campus, in attendance at games for college football to go forward.

I strongly support that position because it is essential to the ethic and mission of college football. As football players, we are students, not separate and apart from our classmates or other Cal athletes. The commitment to a college community is torn asunder by the Pac 12 schemes currently discussed.

Stanford is correct to remind us that "amateurism" is essential. College sports is part of a larger, noble enterprise.

The great sadness, from my perspective, is that students and faculty should be on campus and all fall sports should be played. Cal should have started playing football, and I should be in the north end zone watching them play.

---

College sports is not part of a larger, noble enterprise. It is a multi-billion dollar industry. There is nothing noble about college sports. They are nothing more than a vehicle to provide entertainment to the masses and advertising dollars to the media.

---

If you're talking about FBS football, and D-1 men's basketball, then sure, college sports is part of a multi-billion dollar industry.

But that is a really small piece of college sports. Non-revenue D-1 sports, and all of D-II and D-III are part of college life for a lot of people without being part of a multi-billion dollar industry.

And certainly if you are part of the D-II and D-III life, in most place, it is simple, sports aren't getting played this year. There is no hypocrisy, if college life is going on remotely, then college athletics aren't happening.

For FBS football, however, it is a different story. It is part of a multi-billion dollar industry, and failing to play is going to cost a LOT of money.

The problem with the current situation is that, for those who have managed to stay in denial, playing football under the current situation exposes the hypocrisy of claiming that P5 football it is just a part of regular ol' college life. Stanford doesn't like its own hypocrisy being exposed.

If one takes the view that college sports should have a proper part of the ethic and mission of a college education, then Stanford is absolutely right, it shouldn't play football this fall. But if one takes that view, then Stanford should get out of FBS football altogether.

If LSJU is going to refrain from playing football for the reasons being stated, then it should drop FBS football and P6 men's basketball altogether. Maybe they can maintain integrity and stay D-1 if they join the Big Sky Conference, otherwise they need to drop down further. Maybe they can persuade some other schools in Northern California to go D-III in football and the west coast can get D-III football somewhere in between Southern California and the Pacific Northwest.

If a school is going to be consistent, it has to either accept the ethos of being a P5 football school and play this fall if health conditions allow, or drop P5 football altogether. I suspect some of the strongest forces at LSJU who are opposed to playing football this fall are also in favor of dropping P5 football altogether. We'll see if those at LSJU who have their heads buried in the sand about what being a P5 school REALLY means end up getting LSJU to be a bunch of hypocrites, not playing this fall but coming back when students are back on campus, as though that will mean football players aren't getting preferential treatment.

This is so Furd. All the more ironic because their own researchers are providing the strongest medical evidence for opening everything up - that the virus isn't nearly as severe as news stories originally suggested, and especially for younger people. And that lockdown measures aren't effective.

Stanford University's research has been a huge help toward restoring sanity and getting the nation opened up again. So of course Furd contradicts its own research to keep its football team from competing, for reasons that obviously have nothing to do with Coronavirus.

Because Furd gonna Furd.

NVBear78 said:

---

I just heard De Blasio say they are opening some public schools in New York City now. Can't we get some Pac-12 Football going!

---

My question is, who will be going to Tightwad Hill to watch? And who is bringing up the Top Dogs?

Uthaithani said:

---

This is so Furd. All the more ironic because their own researchers are providing the strongest medical evidence for opening everything up - that the virus isn't nearly as severe as news stories originally suggested, and especially for younger people. And that lockdown measures aren't effective.

Stanford University's research has been a huge help toward restoring sanity and getting the nation opened up again. So of course Furd contradicts its own research to keep its football team from competing, for reasons that obviously have nothing to do with Coronavirus.

Because Furd gonna Furd.

---

What research are you referring to? The only one I've seen is claims by one profesor. Are there others at 'Furd that agree with that professor?

ferCALgm2 said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

This is so Furd. All the more ironic because their own researchers are providing the strongest medical evidence for opening everything up - that the virus isn't nearly as severe as news stories originally suggested, and especially for younger people. And that lockdown measures aren't effective.

Stanford University's research has been a huge help toward restoring sanity and getting the nation opened up again. So of course Furd contradicts its own research to keep its football team from competing, for reasons that obviously have nothing to do with Coronavirus.

Because Furd gonna Furd.

---

What research are you referring to? The only one I've seen is claims by one profesor. Are there others at 'Furd that agree with that professor?

---

Eran Bendavid
Bianca Mulaney
Andrew Bogan
John Ioannidis
Jay Bhattacharya
Scott Atlas
Michael Levitt, Nobel Laureate

These are Stanford medical faulty who do not support the extreme response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

2701RidgeRoad said:

---

ferCALgm2 said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

This is so Furd. All the more ironic because their own researchers are providing the strongest medical evidence for opening everything up - that the virus isn't nearly as severe as news stories originally suggested, and especially for younger people. And that lockdown measures aren't effective.

Stanford University's research has been a huge help toward restoring sanity and getting the nation opened up again. So of course Furd contradicts its own research to keep its football team from competing, for reasons that obviously have nothing to do with Coronavirus.

Because Furd gonna Furd.

---

What research are you referring to? The only one I've seen is claims by one profesor. Are there others at 'Furd that agree with that professor?

---

Eran Bendavid
Bianca Mulaney
Andrew Bogan
John Ioannidis
Jay Bhattacharya
Scott Atlas
Michael Levitt, Nobel Laureate

These are Stanford medical faulty who do not support the extreme response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

---

Exactly. It's pretty much the entire department. Which makes the last-football-team-in-the-nation-to-play position so exquisitely Furdish in its self-serving irony and hypocrisy.

KoreAmBear said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

I just heard De Blasio say they are opening some public schools in New York City now. Can't we get some Pac-12 Football going!

---

My question is, who will be going to Tightwad Hill to watch? And who is bringing up the Top Dogs?

---

What is the capacity of Tightwad Hill?

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

From the Bootleg:

"Details about Stanford's communication with both the league and its own players suggest that the Cardinal does have concerns about its athletes' health in playing a football season, but perhaps the main tenet of Stanford's objection is the matter of amateurism. The argument is that football players, as student-athletes, should not receive preferential treatment over other students and in this case, very simply, be allowed on campus to participate in a university activity when other students are not."

Utah will play and start sooner regardless of what the Pac does.
USC if necessary will play outside the conference, but will play.
Cal and UCLA lukewarmly agree with Stanford, but both schools have given preference to players already such as on campus housing, so unless Stanford compromises, their support is expected to wane.
No discussion of other schools.

There is hope that a few days and the initiation of the Quidel daily COVID-19 testing Stafnord's health objections will be resolved.

There is a strange and lengthy discussion about #WeAreUnited and Stanford's threats to leave the conference and Go Ivy. The inference seems to be that acceding to player demands to play will somehow help bring about changes to amateur status (pay for play and labor union) that Furd will never accept. I have no better way to explain the discussion so go over there and tell me what you think.

The author said that he expects that at the next Pac CEO meeting the concept of leaving Furd behind will be discussed.

Stay tuned, things are no doubt evolving.

---

I am never one to miss a chance to bash Stanford, but they have a point. It is hard to make the argument that playing football is safer than going to class and resuming normal activities with proper precautions. It is hard to understand the argument you make to students that they don't get a normal education, but football gets to go on because we want television money and our alums want to watch games on television.

Whatever the decision, it should be for the whole campus. Keeping students off campus but allowing athletes on campus is bullshyte. These aren't football teams with universities attached.

---

What about the valuable life lesson learned here?

Here's the way it works, kid: Life is filled with inequities. The football players get to come in because the sport makes millions and keeps some of the alums happy. Also, the Speaker of the House can get her hair done, but you can't. And now that you know how life is, you can either accept it, or fight to change it.

Hell, I don't even know if I'm being facetious here or not...

2701RidgeRoad said:

---

ferCALgm2 said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

This is so Furd. All the more ironic because their own researchers are providing the strongest medical evidence for opening everything up - that the virus isn't nearly as severe as news stories originally suggested, and especially for younger people. And that lockdown measures aren't effective.

Stanford University's research has been a huge help toward restoring sanity and getting the nation opened up again. So of course Furd contradicts its own research to keep its football team from competing, for reasons that obviously have nothing to do with Coronavirus.

Because Furd gonna Furd.

---

What research are you referring to? The only one I've seen is claims by one profesor. Are there others at 'Furd that agree with that professor?

---

Eran Bendavid
Bianca Mulaney
Andrew Bogan
John Ioannidis
Jay Bhattacharya
Scott Atlas
Michael Levitt, Nobel Laureate

These are Stanford medical faulty who do not support the extreme response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

---

5 of them authors of the same April study that was completely discredited. 1 of them a radiologist who was blasted in a letter signed by 98 Stanford MD's and PHD's in the medical field.

Levitt won a Nobel in Chemistry, not anything that has anything to do with COVID. He has been wrong over and over and over on COVID

He predicted in March that COVID was almost over. He predicted that Israel would have 10 deaths. They have over 1200. He predicted in March there would be 250 deaths in Switzerland when they were already near 200. they have well over 1700. In mid summer he predicted Brazil would end up around 98,000 deaths. They are a 138000 and still seeing many deaths a day.

He has not just advised no lockdowns. He has advised people to get the virus on purpose. There are legitimate debates to be had about what we should and should not be doing, but he has said absolutely nothing that makes any sense. I think that advocating people take "COVID cruises" puts him in the category of supporting extreme responses.

The idea that "Stanford" is supporting that position is ridiculous. There are a lot more Stanford faculty on the Scott Atlas letter than any you can name that are supposedly not supporting "extreme response"

NVBear78 said:

---

I just heard De Blasio say they are opening some public schools in New York City now. Can't we get some Pac-12 Football going!

---

Let me help you with this one since I know a lot about the subject (my daughter and son-in-law are both teachers in the New York City School District).

Initially, DiBiaso said school would open on September 10th. However, the schools were woefully unprepared and the teachers and school administrators both strenuously objected. After a discussion with the unions that represent the teachers and principals, DiBiaso, pushed the starting date back to September 16th. Due to continuing problems at the schools (mostly related to ventilation, a huge problem with the NYC schools) and a severe teacher shortage, DiBiaso realized September 16 was not realistic. The physical return of students to the high schools is now set for October 1 (elementary and middle schools - Sept 29). I suspect that date could slide unless they can quickly resolve the ventilation issues and shortage of teachers (a significant percentage of teachers have chosen not to return to the classroom due to medical reasons - they will work from home handling remote instruction).

Quite frankly, it is a huge mess and the blame goes entirely to DiBiaso - he has no idea what he is doing.

OaktownBear said:

---

2701RidgeRoad said:

---

ferCALgm2 said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

This is so Furd. All the more ironic because their own researchers are providing the strongest medical evidence for opening everything up - that the virus isn't nearly as severe as news stories originally suggested, and especially for younger people. And that lockdown measures aren't effective.

Stanford University's research has been a huge help toward restoring sanity and getting the nation opened up again. So of course Furd contradicts its own research to keep its football team from competing, for reasons that obviously have nothing to do with Coronavirus.

Because Furd gonna Furd.

---

What research are you referring to? The only one I've seen is claims by one profesor. Are there others at 'Furd that agree with that professor?

---

Eran Bendavid
Bianca Mulaney
Andrew Bogan
John Ioannidis
Jay Bhattacharya
Scott Atlas
Michael Levitt, Nobel Laureate

These are Stanford medical faulty who do not support the extreme response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

---

5 of them authors of the same April study that was completely discredited. 1 of them a radiologist who was blasted in a letter signed by 98 Stanford MD's and PHD's in the medical field.

Levitt won a Nobel in Chemistry, not anything that has anything to do with COVID. He has been wrong over and over and over on COVID

He predicted in March that COVID was almost over. He predicted that Israel would have 10 deaths. They have over 1200. He predicted in March there would be 250 deaths in Switzerland when they were already near 200. they have well over 1700. In mid summer he predicted Brazil would end up around 98,000 deaths. They are a 138000 and still seeing many deaths a day.

He has not just advised no lockdowns. He has advised people to get the virus on purpose. There are legitimate debates to be had about what we should and should not be doing, but he has said absolutely nothing that makes any sense. I think that advocating people take "COVID cruises" puts him in the category of supporting extreme responses.

The idea that "Stanford" is supporting that position is ridiculous. There are a lot more Stanford faculty on the Scott Atlas letter than any you can name that are supposedly not supporting "extreme response"

---

If readers truly care about this issue, they should carefully read the studies, carefully, critically. If you are hot on this subject, take a break, cool off, then read as if you cared.

Do not forget the ostensible "scientific projections" used by Governor Newsom, to wit: 25.5 million Californians sick, 250k dead by May 15. That type of "science" should provoke outrage, not the serious work of medical researchers such as those from Stanford.

This thread is comical.

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

From the Bootleg:

"Details about Stanford's communication with both the league and its own players suggest that the Cardinal does have concerns about its athletes' health in playing a football season, but perhaps the main tenet of Stanford's objection is the matter of amateurism. The argument is that football players, as student-athletes, should not receive preferential treatment over other students and in this case, very simply, be allowed on campus to participate in a university activity when other students are not."

Utah will play and start sooner regardless of what the Pac does.
USC if necessary will play outside the conference, but will play.
Cal and UCLA lukewarmly agree with Stanford, but both schools have given preference to players already such as on campus housing, so unless Stanford compromises, their support is expected to wane.
No discussion of other schools.

There is hope that a few days and the initiation of the Quidel daily COVID-19 testing Stafnord's health objections will be resolved.

There is a strange and lengthy discussion about #WeAreUnited and Stanford's threats to leave the conference and Go Ivy. The inference seems to be that acceding to player demands to play will somehow help bring about changes to amateur status (pay for play and labor union) that Furd will never accept. I have no better way to explain the discussion so go over there and tell me what you think.

The author said that he expects that at the next Pac CEO meeting the concept of leaving Furd behind will be discussed.

Stay tuned, things are no doubt evolving.

---

I am never one to miss a chance to bash Stanford, but they have a point. It is hard to make the argument that playing football is safer than going to class and resuming normal activities with proper precautions. It is hard to understand the argument you make to students that they don't get a normal education, but football gets to go on because we want television money and our alums want to watch games on television.

Whatever the decision, it should be for the whole campus. Keeping students off campus but allowing athletes on campus is bullshyte. These aren't football teams with universities attached.

---

What about the valuable life lesson learned here?

Here's the way it works, kid: Life is filled with inequities. The football players get to come in because the sport makes millions and keeps some of the alums happy. Also, the Speaker of the House can get her hair done, but you can't. And now that you know how life is, you can either accept it, or fight to change it.

Hell, I don't even know if I'm being facetious here or not...

---

Sports making millions is not the answer. 7000 Cal undergrads live in dorms in a normal year. Room and board in dorms is $17000. UCLA is about the same price but 12000 undergrads. Much of the expense is sunk cost to the university. Get the ol' calculator out. Cal, UCLA, and every other school that doesn't have students in on campus housing, is losing millions not having students on campus. If Cal and UCLA had to choose between getting out of the football business or getting out of the residence hall business, based on money, they'd get out of the football business.

Big Dog said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

From the Bootleg:

"Details about Stanford's communication with both the league and its own players suggest that the Cardinal does have concerns about its athletes' health in playing a football season, but perhaps the main tenet of Stanford's objection is the matter of amateurism. The argument is that football players, as student-athletes, should not receive preferential treatment over other students and in this case, very simply, be allowed on campus to participate in a university activity when other students are not."

Utah will play and start sooner regardless of what the Pac does.
USC if necessary will play outside the conference, but will play.
Cal and UCLA lukewarmly agree with Stanford, but both schools have given preference to players already such as on campus housing, so unless Stanford compromises, their support is expected to wane.
No discussion of other schools.

There is hope that a few days and the initiation of the Quidel daily COVID-19 testing Stafnord's health objections will be resolved.

There is a strange and lengthy discussion about #WeAreUnited and Stanford's threats to leave the conference and Go Ivy. The inference seems to be that acceding to player demands to play will somehow help bring about changes to amateur status (pay for play and labor union) that Furd will never accept. I have no better way to explain the discussion so go over there and tell me what you think.

The author said that he expects that at the next Pac CEO meeting the concept of leaving Furd behind will be discussed.

Stay tuned, things are no doubt evolving.

---

There is zero chance that the Ivy League would be interested in adding Stanford. The travel costs would be prohibitive.

---

No, going Ivy League approach. No scholies for athletes, no power 5. Not joining the Ivy League conference. Quite honesty, I don't know where they contemplate going conference wise when they made their threats at the congressional hearing.

2701RidgeRoad said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

2701RidgeRoad said:

---

ferCALgm2 said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

This is so Furd. All the more ironic because their own researchers are providing the strongest medical evidence for opening everything up - that the virus isn't nearly as severe as news stories originally suggested, and especially for younger people. And that lockdown measures aren't effective.

Stanford University's research has been a huge help toward restoring sanity and getting the nation opened up again. So of course Furd contradicts its own research to keep its football team from competing, for reasons that obviously have nothing to do with Coronavirus.

Because Furd gonna Furd.

---

What research are you referring to? The only one I've seen is claims by one profesor. Are there others at 'Furd that agree with that professor?

---

Eran Bendavid
Bianca Mulaney
Andrew Bogan
John Ioannidis
Jay Bhattacharya
Scott Atlas
Michael Levitt, Nobel Laureate

These are Stanford medical faulty who do not support the extreme response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

---

5 of them authors of the same April study that was completely discredited. 1 of them a radiologist who was blasted in a letter signed by 98 Stanford MD's and PHD's in the medical field.

Levitt won a Nobel in Chemistry, not anything that has anything to do with COVID. He has been wrong over and over and over on COVID

He predicted in March that COVID was almost over. He predicted that Israel would have 10 deaths. They have over 1200. He predicted in March there would be 250 deaths in Switzerland when they were already near 200. they have well over 1700. In mid summer he predicted Brazil would end up around 98,000 deaths. They are a 138000 and still seeing many deaths a day.

He has not just advised no lockdowns. He has advised people to get the virus on purpose. There are legitimate debates to be had about what we should and should not be doing, but he has said absolutely nothing that makes any sense. I think that advocating people take "COVID cruises" puts him in the category of supporting extreme responses.

The idea that "Stanford" is supporting that position is ridiculous. There are a lot more Stanford faculty on the Scott Atlas letter than any you can name that are supposedly not supporting "extreme response"

---

If readers truly care about this issue, they should carefully read the studies, carefully, critically. If you are hot on this subject, take a break, cool off, then read as if you cared.

Do not forget the ostensible "scientific projections" used by Governor Newsom, to wit: 25.5 million Californians sick, 250k dead by May 15. That type of "science" should provoke outrage, not the serious work of medical researchers such as those from Stanford.

---

I said a the time those numbers by Newsom were stupid. Trying to take the most ridiculous worst case scenario numbers to scare the hell out of people is stupid. Problem is, the numbers that actually came to fruition should have been enough to scare the hell out of people.

Are you willing to say the same about Levitt's projections that were massively wrong?

I absolutely welcome people to read the April Stanford study and then also read the comments by their peers that pointed out the obvious flaws.

I absolutely welcome people to read what you apparently feel is serious "work" by Levitt.

And why are your 7 better than my 98? When the poster asked if there was work other than by 1 Stanford professor, you listed that professor, 4 other professors who authored the same study. You listed another Stanford scientist who is not a medical researcher and not in the field and who has made the above crazy predictions that have been drastically wrong. You listed a political appointee who is not a researcher and not in the field and who had had 98 Stanford professors send out the following letter under "Stanford Medicine" letterhead.

Quote:

---

September 9, 2020

Dear Colleagues,

As infectious diseases physicians and researchers, microbiologist and immunologists, epidemiologists and health policy leaders, we stand united in efforts to develop and promote science-based solutions that advance human health and prevent suffering from the coronavirus pandemic. In this pursuit, we share a commitment to a basic principle derived from the Hippocratic Oath: Primum Non Nocere (First, Do No Harm).

To prevent harm to the public's health, we also have both a moral and an ethical responsibility to call attention to the falsehoods and misrepresentations of science recently fostered by Dr. Scott Atlas, a former Stanford Medical School colleague and current senior fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Many of his opinions and statements run counter to established science and, by doing so, undermine public-health authorities and the credible science that guides effective public health policy. The preponderance of data, accrued from around the world, currently supports each of the following statements:

The use of face masks, social distancing, handwashing and hygiene have been shown to substantially reduce the spread of Covid-19. Crowded indoor spaces are settings that significantly increase the risk of community spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 frequently occurs from asymptomatic people, including children and young adults, to family members and others. Therefore, testing asymptomatic individuals, especially those with probable Covid-19 exposure is important to break the chain of ongoing transmission.

Children of all ages can be infected with SARS-CoV-2. While infection is less common in children than in adults, serious short-term and long-term consequences of Covid-19 are increasingly described in children and young people.

The pandemic will be controlled when a large proportion of a population has developed immunity (referred to as herd immunity) and that the safest path to herd immunity is through deployment of rigorously evaluated, effective vaccines that have been approved by regulatory agencies.

In contrast, encouraging herd immunity through unchecked community transmission is not a safe public health strategy. In fact, this approach would do the opposite, causing a significant increase in preventable cases, suffering and deaths, especially among vulnerable populations, such as older individuals and essential workers.

Commitment to science-based decision-making is a fundamental obligation of public health policy. The rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the US, with consequent morbidity and mortality, are among the highest in the world. The policy response to this pandemic must reinforce the science, including that evidence-based prevention and the safe development, testing and delivery of efficacious therapies and preventive measures, including vaccines, represent the safest path forward. Failure to follow the science -- or deliberately misrepresenting the science will lead to immense avoidable harm.

We believe that social and economic activity can reopen safely, if we follow policies that are consistent with science. In fact, the countries that have reopened businesses and schools safely are those that have implemented the science-based strategies outlined above.

As Stanford faculty with expertise in infectious diseases, epidemiology and health policy, our signatures support this statement with the hope that our voices affirm scientific, medical and public health approaches that promote the safety of our communities and nation

---

Whatever the right answer, the portrayal by you and the previous poster here of the opinions of Stanford researchers is not accurate. There are many times more Stanford medical faculty who have disagreed with what you are saying. The honest answer to the poster's question was there has been one study, one guy outside the field who is a Trump appointee, and one crazy old loon.

I will make the hopelessly-optimistic prediction that Stanford will play and we'll have Pac-12 football this fall. The threat of embarrassment is just too great.

BTW, as of today the state has a 14-day average virus positivity rate of 3.1% and falling. Covid's headed for the ICU.

LMK5 said:

---

I will make the hopelessly-optimistic prediction that Stanford will play and we'll have Pac-12 football this fall. The threat of embarrassment is just too great.

BTW, as of today the state has a 14-day average virus positivity rate of 3.1% and falling. Covid's headed for the ICU.

---

I sure hope so, LMK. Dad loves having his college freshman daughter around a little longer, but she deserves to get to college and live on her own and she is ready for it. Starting off college in her bedroom massively sucks.