Story Poster
Cal Football

The Case For the Bears Playing This Weekend

November 11, 2020
9,364

The Cal football program finds itself in a tough position and at a crossroads with the City of Berkeley Department of Public Health enforcing a 14-day quarantine for a player who tested positive for COVID-19 as well as the rest of his defensive line teammates along with some other players on the roster, as well.

The quarantine forced a cancellation of the team’s home opener last weekend against Washington and has put the team in serious jeopardy of missing their second consecutive game to start the season with no progress on the quarantine front with the COB as of yet.

The program has looked at multiple options but nothing as of yet has stood out as a clear path forward. In conversations with Cal’s AD Jim Knowlton, Bear Insider has learned more about the details of what is taking place.

One issue is that Alameda County currently has a very low transmission rate and other potential practice and game sites largely have higher rates of transmission and infection -a scenario that if there should be further infections on the team could prove to be especially problematic on several fronts.

One of the options for the team was to leave early for Arizona and practice there well before the game, however, that situation is problematic, with the Bay Area having a 2.5% positive testing rate vs. nearly 20% in Arizona. Other closer options have been explored but have logistical and other problems, though the athletic department is still exploring more options.

Cal AD Jim Knowlton feels that the Cal program has the safest and most conservative set of safety protocols in the country. They do not use the locker room, they lift weights outside and all their position group meetings are outside and socially-distant. They eat outside with takeout lunches and they test for covid daily with their antigen tests that not only test for the presence of the virus but also read any trace levels of infection.

The Cal program isn’t the only program dealing with this problem. Four SEC games, affecting eight total teams in just one conference have already been cancelled this week. In the Pac-12, Utah and Arizona had their game cancelled along with Cal last weekend with a fairly large outbreak for the Utes. Stanford, UCLA, Washington State and Oregon State also played games where players had multiple positive covid tests, as well.

Knowlton’s, as well as the players and coaches’ desire is to move forward and play this weekend and end the quarantine for all of the players sequestered for contract tracing after having consistently tested negatively in daily antigen tests. His and the program’s first priority is the health and safety of the players and program and they have done their part.

Knowlton’s position is not to play doctor and advocate for injured players to play. To not play coach and tell the staff how to run the team and to not play politician and tell the state and city how to run their business and make decisions on behalf of the public, which would surely not be successful if he tried. 

He feels it’s his job to be an advocate for the program, to create the most advantageous working conditions possible, to be a willing ear for his programs’ concerns and to do everything possible to pave the way for the success of the athletic programs. He feels he’s been clear in showing public health officials the careful protocols the football program have in place and have been carefully adhering to on a consistent basis.

The City of Berkeley is now hiding behind their interpretation of the rules.  To show flexibility and take into account the number of days Cal’s players have tested negative as well as the extreme steps the program is taking to keep players healthy, would in their minds leave them vulnerable to criticism if more players were to get COVID.  Far “safer” from their perspective to not apply common sense and see the big picture, instead they can simply cite the rules and avoid further comment.

The program feels like there should be other considerations, particularly considering how they’ve gone above and beyond with their safety protocols and daily antigen testing. The quarantined players have now tested negative for 10 days and with the specificity and accuracy of the daily antigen tests, that should be more than adequate to ensure the safety of the team and the health of the players in question.

Knowlton has been in constant touch with city officials, though from the outside looking it, it appears that the city is hiding behind the rules to protect themselves on the outside chance that there are further infections to the team that would put others at risk.

It is our contention at Bear Insider that the program has been safe and responsible to the highest degree and with that in mind, along with the fact that they’ve tried their utmost to work with the city in good faith, the players should be released from quarantine and closely monitored with a return to practice, with this weekend’s game played a day later on Sunday (one of Knowlton’s ideas) to give the team at least a modicum of time to integrate the quarantined players back into their gameplan.

They owe it to the players. They owe it to the staff. They owe it to the players’ families, who know the program is doing everything humanly possible to keep their sons safe and healthy. And they owe it to their long-suffering fan base, who have waited a long ten and a half months to see their beloved Bears take the field this weekend.

Taking aside the City of Berkeley, the question for Cal is whether they have pushed hard enough to find a solution that avoids the COB’s jurisdiction.  Are they showing the same commitment to the program that fans, donors, the staff, and players clearly have?  The player’s health and safety AND the ability to play the game this weekend do not feel like mutually exclusive options.  It’s hard not to feel that Cal is somehow viewing this situation through a lens that is different from every other college and professional football program in the country.   

If indeed, the ASU game is canceled because of the COB, there can not help but be hard feelings from the Cal faithful and potential implications to the program’s future recruiting, staff retention, and ongoing donor and fan support.  

Discussion from...

The Case For the Bears Playing This Weekend

7,429 Views | 13 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by philly1121
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
IMO, this is all abut optics and not looking bad, and not the commitment made to the student athletes when they came to Cal. Anything else is noise.
adujan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I am proud of how seriously the program has taken the virus. I know they are being forced to use an abundance of caution, but it is still nice to know that player safety and minimizing community transmission has been the priority.

I agree with Bear Insider and hope the program is allowed to play. They've done everything right so far and should not be punished further by forcing another cancellation.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

IMO, this is all abut optics and not looking bad, and not the commitment made to the student athletes when they came to Cal. Anything else is noise.
One question and some comments.

Question: Is the City or the Berkeley Health Department forbidding Cal from playing or are they refusing to state that it is okay to play? Those are two different things. If Cal wants to play but is being legally forbidden from doing so, that is one issue. If Cal wants to play but will only do so with the legal/political cover of having the health department sanction it, that is another issue.

Under the state guidelines and procedures, like them or not, those players in quarantine should not play. The standard is 14 days of quarantine for those in close contact with a positive. Period. There is the potential to have a waiver for certain necessary personnel that there is no argument includes college football players. Based on this, I do not think there is any health department that is going to clear them. If there are, they clearly are not following the standard. This is the standard that employers are supposed to follow.

However, clearly professional and college sports teams have played without quarantining close contacts for 14 days. The A's played in Alameda county after 5 days. So, somehow people are playing without following the standard.

So, my question is whether Cal is looking for a blessing that they are never going to get or if they are actually being forbidden. I very much doubt that UCLA got a blessing. I very much doubt the A's got a blessing. So the question is whether Berkeley is going beyond what other health departments are doing and actively stopping them, or is Berkeley saying, "Cal - we told you the standard. If you play, on your head be it." (which I think you would find is what other health departments are doing). IMO, Berkeley should not be forbidding anything. On the flip side, Cal cannot expect the City of Berkeley or the Berkeley health department to take responsibility for this. The standards are clear. If Cal plays, they are doing so outside the standard, which was definitely true for Stanford and UCLA. I'm sure this was the impetus for Berkeley's statement - We told you the standard. The standard is 14 days. It is pretty simple. Nothing has changed. If you are waiting on us to provide a different standard, we aren't going to.

Honestly, I do not see that Berkeley has any authority over activities in Arizona. They can't stop anyone at Cal from going or the game from taking place. So I question whether this week's game is a Berkeley issue. If Cal is waiting for Berkeley to give the green light for an activity they do not care about, that isn't happening nor should they expect Berkeley to give them legal or political cover for an activity that is purely to Cal's benefit.


As an aside - I don't agree with the 14 day standard. It is possible for someone to become positive 14 days out, but very unlikely. most show symptoms and/or test positive within 7-10 days. I think that 10 days without symptoms combined with negative tests is enough risk mitigation. If quarantining for 14 days is low impact, by all means quarantine. However, if there is significant impact, 10 days should be enough. But understand, you are not going to get "approval" from the health department for that.

Lastly, Cal should have been in touch with the Berkeley health department before they decided to play and been very clear on the contingencies.

Never Red
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All well stated in the article. This is such a failure for our student athletes. The players and coaches want to play and cannot understand why they are being treated inconsistently. 123 Division 1 football teams along with high school and pro teams across the country have been practicing and playing games for months without any significant health consequences. Every Division 1 team in California has played except Cal. All reasonable precautions have been taken by Cal and the quarantined players have completed daily tests for 10 days confirming that we have no active cases. There is no medical justification to cancel this game. I hope our AD is fighting for our players.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

wifeisafurd said:

IMO, this is all abut optics and not looking bad, and not the commitment made to the student athletes when they came to Cal. Anything else is noise.
One question and some comments.

Question: Is the City or the Berkeley Health Department forbidding Cal from playing or are they refusing to state that it is okay to play? Those are two different things. If Cal wants to play but is being legally forbidden from doing so, that is one issue. If Cal wants to play but will only do so with the legal/political cover of having the health department sanction it, that is another issue.

Under the state guidelines and procedures, like them or not, those players in quarantine should not play. The standard is 14 days of quarantine for those in close contact with a positive. Period. There is the potential to have a waiver for certain necessary personnel that there is no argument includes college football players. Based on this, I do not think there is any health department that is going to clear them. If there are, they clearly are not following the standard. This is the standard that employers are supposed to follow.

However, clearly professional and college sports teams have played without quarantining close contacts for 14 days. The A's played in Alameda county after 5 days. So, somehow people are playing without following the standard.

So, my question is whether Cal is looking for a blessing that they are never going to get or if they are actually being forbidden. I very much doubt that UCLA got a blessing. I very much doubt the A's got a blessing. So the question is whether Berkeley is going beyond what other health departments are doing and actively stopping them, or is Berkeley saying, "Cal - we told you the standard. If you play, on your head be it." (which I think you would find is what other health departments are doing). IMO, Berkeley should not be forbidding anything. On the flip side, Cal cannot expect the City of Berkeley or the Berkeley health department to take responsibility for this. The standards are clear. If Cal plays, they are doing so outside the standard, which was definitely true for Stanford and UCLA. I'm sure this was the impetus for Berkeley's statement - We told you the standard. The standard is 14 days. It is pretty simple. Nothing has changed. If you are waiting on us to provide a different standard, we aren't going to.

Honestly, I do not see that Berkeley has any authority over activities in Arizona. They can't stop anyone at Cal from going or the game from taking place. So I question whether this week's game is a Berkeley issue. If Cal is waiting for Berkeley to give the green light for an activity they do not care about, that isn't happening nor should they expect Berkeley to give them legal or political cover for an activity that is purely to Cal's benefit.


As an aside - I don't agree with the 14 day standard. It is possible for someone to become positive 14 days out, but very unlikely. most show symptoms and/or test positive within 7-10 days. I think that 10 days without symptoms combined with negative tests is enough risk mitigation. If quarantining for 14 days is low impact, by all means quarantine. However, if there is significant impact, 10 days should be enough. But understand, you are not going to get "approval" from the health department for that.

Lastly, Cal should have been in touch with the Berkeley health department before they decided to play and been very clear on the contingencies.




Yeah, Knowlton should have set up the agreed upon protocols with the university, the PAC-12, COB, etc in advance. Trying to get "OK" on the fly from the city becomes a legal issue to be reviewed by lawyers. No one is going to stick their neck out. That is why Cal should just document that the players have consistently tested negative and jump on a plane and play the game. Then review and establish protocols with all parties next week.
TandemBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Those who think that we should cancel the season because of the virus or some action close to that need to keep in mind that we are willing and active participants in an immense, robust and profitable industry - professional football. Decisions that we make or do not make impact that industry and ping back at us from it.

You may not like it. I'm not happy about it, because of what pro football has become (inevitable as that may have been). But, that's the reality we're part of. You can talk about de-escalating the program, but that would just make us poorer and less than the best we can be. It's either all in or all out.

This is the primary reason why so many college teams are playing. The best example is Ohio State. A few star players and future NFL stars looked at the consequences of the Big 10 shutting down the season and saw their NFL chances and future earnings diminished. They forced the conference to admit error and start play. The SEC and ACC foresaw what the Big 10 pretended would not happen. They went ahead. They are managing it. Their worlds are not ending.

So, capitulating to government derived rules, granted with all the best intentions, weakened our position in the industry. We need to face facts and stop succumbing to the "if even one life is saved..." argument. We're well past that.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rushinbear said:

Those who think that we should cancel the season because of the virus or some action close to that need to keep in mind that we are willing and active participants in an immense, robust and profitable industry - professional football. Decisions that we make or do not make impact that industry and ping back at us from it.

You may not like it. I'm not happy about it, because of what pro football has become (inevitable as that may have been). But, that's the reality we're part of. You can talk about de-escalating the program, but that would just make us poorer and less than the best we can be. It's either all in or all out.

This is the primary reason why so many college teams are playing. The best example is Ohio State. A few star players and future NFL stars looked at the consequences of the Big 10 shutting down the season and saw their NFL chances and future earnings diminished. They forced the conference to admit error and start play. The SEC and ACC foresaw what the Big 10 pretended would not happen. They went ahead. They are managing it. Their worlds are not ending.

So, capitulating to government derived rules, granted with all the best intentions, weakened our position in the industry. We need to face facts and stop succumbing to the "if even one life is saved..." argument. We're well past that.
I don't see anyone using the "one life saved" argument. I see a lot of people using the "any impact on football destroys it" model.

Our response to Covid is not going to kill college football or kill recruiting long term. Some kid a couple years from now is not going to care.

We should make a reasonable determination based on reasonable evidence and neither the view that one case is too many or that we have to play because if we don't it will kill our program should prevail.

Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

Rushinbear said:

Those who think that we should cancel the season because of the virus or some action close to that need to keep in mind that we are willing and active participants in an immense, robust and profitable industry - professional football. Decisions that we make or do not make impact that industry and ping back at us from it.

You may not like it. I'm not happy about it, because of what pro football has become (inevitable as that may have been). But, that's the reality we're part of. You can talk about de-escalating the program, but that would just make us poorer and less than the best we can be. It's either all in or all out.

This is the primary reason why so many college teams are playing. The best example is Ohio State. A few star players and future NFL stars looked at the consequences of the Big 10 shutting down the season and saw their NFL chances and future earnings diminished. They forced the conference to admit error and start play. The SEC and ACC foresaw what the Big 10 pretended would not happen. They went ahead. They are managing it. Their worlds are not ending.

So, capitulating to government derived rules, granted with all the best intentions, weakened our position in the industry. We need to face facts and stop succumbing to the "if even one life is saved..." argument. We're well past that.
I don't see anyone using the "one life saved" argument. I see a lot of people using the "any impact on football destroys it" model.

Our response to Covid is not going to kill college football or kill recruiting long term. Some kid a couple years from now is not going to care.

We should make a reasonable determination based on reasonable evidence and neither the view that one case is too many or that we have to play because if we don't it will kill our program should prevail.


COVID can be used to kill college fb, at least at Cal. Is it being used that way? I don't have proof, but there are a lot of unscrupulous anti-fb people who readily use COVID as a pretext to further their goal. No, I can't name any, since they hide their identities, but I keep seeing articles about how fb should be stopped. It's a lot easier to kill Cal's recruiting. I'd be surprised if it isn't being attempted already.

You have made an either/or dichotomy here when this is really about nuances and management of risks and rewards. Right now, it appears that our management doesn't include enough creativity.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rushinbear said:

OaktownBear said:

Rushinbear said:

Those who think that we should cancel the season because of the virus or some action close to that need to keep in mind that we are willing and active participants in an immense, robust and profitable industry - professional football. Decisions that we make or do not make impact that industry and ping back at us from it.

You may not like it. I'm not happy about it, because of what pro football has become (inevitable as that may have been). But, that's the reality we're part of. You can talk about de-escalating the program, but that would just make us poorer and less than the best we can be. It's either all in or all out.

This is the primary reason why so many college teams are playing. The best example is Ohio State. A few star players and future NFL stars looked at the consequences of the Big 10 shutting down the season and saw their NFL chances and future earnings diminished. They forced the conference to admit error and start play. The SEC and ACC foresaw what the Big 10 pretended would not happen. They went ahead. They are managing it. Their worlds are not ending.

So, capitulating to government derived rules, granted with all the best intentions, weakened our position in the industry. We need to face facts and stop succumbing to the "if even one life is saved..." argument. We're well past that.
I don't see anyone using the "one life saved" argument. I see a lot of people using the "any impact on football destroys it" model.

Our response to Covid is not going to kill college football or kill recruiting long term. Some kid a couple years from now is not going to care.

We should make a reasonable determination based on reasonable evidence and neither the view that one case is too many or that we have to play because if we don't it will kill our program should prevail.


COVID can be used to kill college fb, at least at Cal. Is it being used that way? I don't have proof, but there are a lot of unscrupulous anti-fb people who readily use COVID as a pretext to further their goal. No, I can't name any, since they hide their identities, but I keep seeing articles about how fb should be stopped. It's a lot easier to kill Cal's recruiting. I'd be surprised if it isn't being attempted already.

You have made an either/or dichotomy here when this is really about nuances and management of risks and rewards. Right now, it appears that our management doesn't include enough creativity.
I was pointing out that you were making an either or dichotomy.

I'm sorry, but the "I can't prove it, but people are using Covid to kill Cal football" doesn't wash.

Does it occur to you that many people don't think we should be playing sports for the simple reason that they don't believe it is safe to do so? That doesn't make them right, but seeing articles about how football should be stopped doesn't mean Covid is being used as a pretext, just as people who believe indoor dining should be shutdown does not mean that there is a conspiracy to destroy the restaurant industry.

I have to also say that, man, some of you guys are not looking at what the hell is going on. Europe was a few weeks ahead of us on the upward curve and Covid is ripping them to shreds right now. It is skyrocketing here and our curve is following theirs just a couple weeks behind. Our hospitalizations are higher than they ever were at the peak. Deaths are following. You guys are really keeping your head in the sand as long as you can on this.

Flu season is measured in US from October 1 May 30. Covid deaths this flu season so far with 6.5 months to go, compared to the last 10 years (measured from October 1) Keep in mind we usually peak in January. Most years, people are getting their vaccinations about now:

2017-2018 61000
2014-2015 -51000
2012-2-13 43000
2013-2014 38000
2016-2017 - 38000
2010-2011 37000
Covid 2020-2021 October 1 through November 12 35,698
2018-2019 34200
2015-2016 23000
2019-2020 22000
2011-2012 12000


Annual Covid deaths vs. Car Accidents:
Covid 2020 (as of November 12) 242,654
2019 36,120
2018 36,560
2017 37.473
2016 37,461
2015 35,092
2014 32,675
2013 32,719
2012 33,561
2011 32,367
2010 32,885

Top ten causes of death in 2018 compared to Covid so far in 2020.
  • Heart disease: 655,381
  • Cancer: 599,274
  • Covid 2020 as of November 12: 242,654
  • Accidents (unintentional injuries): 167,127
  • Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 159,486
  • Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 147,810
  • Alzheimer's disease: 122,019
  • Diabetes: 84,946
  • Influenza and Pneumonia: 59,120
  • Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis: 51,386
  • Intentional self-harm (suicide): 48,344


philly1121
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Perhaps I'm missing something here but - the game won't be played because of ASU, not us. Also the game is AT ASU, right? So what relevance does the City of Berkeley have on whether we play this game?

Also I think many people forget that, though there are 58 counties in California - with 58 public health departments - Berkeley, Long Beach and one other city have their own public health departments for which they can dictate what is public health policy.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:

Perhaps I'm missing something here but - the game won't be played because of ASU, not us. Also the game is AT ASU, right? So what relevance does the City of Berkeley have on whether we play this game?

Also I think many people forget that, though there are 58 counties in California - with 58 public health departments - Berkeley, Long Beach and one other city have their own public health departments for which they can dictate what is public health policy.


There is a certain subset of Cal fans - let's call them red hats (for lack of a better term) - that hate anything and everything to do with the City of Berkeley. Many of them also feel this way about the university administration. It seems the only things they like about their alma mater are things with a script Cal on them.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
philly1121
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yes I'm starting to see that on other threads.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.