[gailtate]

I want to know who -- other than the usual, oblivious cheerleaders -- thinks this is is going to be an edge-of-your-seat nail-biter tomorrow and WHY.

Even before the brutal medical report this week, I was cautiously optimistic at best. Now? This looks and smells like the match-up from holy hell: all Bruin strengths leveraged directly at Stanford weaknesses, on both sides. I would take UCLA and the points and bet on the OVER. Unhesitatingly. I also want to know WTF the "Covid implications" are all about. Aren't these guys VAXED? Why is this even a rumor? And why the volume of injuries? Why so soft? Why, why, why are we seeing guys go down like ten-pins? Year after year after YEAR? So, challenge me.

[gailtate]

I want to know who -- other than the usual, oblivious cheerleaders -- thinks this is is going to be an edge-of-your-seat nail-biter tomorrow and WHY.

Even before the brutal medical report this week, I was cautiously optimistic at best. Now? This looks and smells like the match-up from holy hell: all Bruin strengths leveraged directly at Stanford weaknesses, on both sides. I would take UCLA and the points and bet on the OVER. Unhesitatingly. I also want to know WTF the "Covid implications" are all about. Aren't these guys VAXED? Why is this even a rumor? And why the volume of injuries? Why so soft? Why, why, why are we seeing guys go down like ten-pins? Year after year after YEAR? So, challenge me.

[BostonCard]

I'm on record as being pessimistic about this game.  That being said, I was pessimistic about USC as well, and was wrong.

ESPN is more sanguine than you and I are:

https://www.espn.com/college-football/ga.../401309858

They give us a 55/45 chance.  The spread (currently at 4.5 points) gives us about a 1 in 3 chance of winning.

BC

[BostonCard]

I'm on record as being pessimistic about this game.  That being said, I was pessimistic about USC as well, and was wrong.

ESPN is more sanguine than you and I are:

https://www.espn.com/college-football/ga.../401309858

They give us a 55/45 chance.  The spread (currently at 4.5 points) gives us about a 1 in 3 chance of winning.

BC

[McKenwood]

This kills me. My wife's alma mater.

Stanford's offense at full strength would have made this a 2020 like thriller. Now not so much. Only hope is Dave Wyman and Blake Martinez like clones emerge from Stanford's indifferent group of linebackers and somehow contain DTR and their two exceptional running backs.

Like Gailtate these absences gall me. Injuries I understand. This is a tough sport. If it is because a player refused to get vaxxed and then tainted his teammates by association tell the offender he no longer has a place on the team. Stanford (or any team) cannot carry this type of baggage around that can come out at the worst possible times. Who else will be out on Saturday?

[McKenwood]

This kills me. My wife's alma mater.

Stanford's offense at full strength would have made this a 2020 like thriller. Now not so much. Only hope is Dave Wyman and Blake Martinez like clones emerge from Stanford's indifferent group of linebackers and somehow contain DTR and their two exceptional running backs.

Like Gailtate these absences gall me. Injuries I understand. This is a tough sport. If it is because a player refused to get vaxxed and then tainted his teammates by association tell the offender he no longer has a place on the team. Stanford (or any team) cannot carry this type of baggage around that can come out at the worst possible times. Who else will be out on Saturday?

[teejers1]

This kills me. My wife's alma mater.

Stanford's offense at full strength would have made this a 2020 like thriller. Now not so much. Only hope is Dave Wyman and Blake Martinez like clones emerge from Stanford's indifferent group of linebackers and somehow contain DTR and their two exceptional running backs.

Like Gailtate these absences gall me. Injuries I understand. This is a tough sport. If it is because a player refused to get vaxxed and then tainted his teammates by association tell the offender he no longer has a place on the team. Stanford (or any team) cannot carry this type of baggage around that can come out at the worst possible times. Who else will be out on Saturday?

I've bagged on David Shaw as OC and his insistence on wearing the headsets and carrying the Denny's Menu in light of too-numerous-deficiencies-over-the-years to overlook.  However, I have always believed him to have numerous other qualities that make him a good head coach (IF he would only delegate that offense thing).  One of those qualities is being a good role model for young men and helping them develop into responsible adults.  Thus, I would have expected basically 100% vaccination for Stanford players under his charge - but evidently that is not the case (and pretty significantly not the case).  

I realize that it's hard to persuade certain folks of the advantages of getting vaccinated (though I wouldn't expect many of those to be Stanford students, to be blunt).  Thus, the vax rate percent of Stanford football players is a minor demerit reflecting on the coach.  Again, lots of factors here, but I would have expected better leadership on this front.  And btw, I have that same expectation for all Stanford coaches.

[teejers1]

This kills me. My wife's alma mater.

Stanford's offense at full strength would have made this a 2020 like thriller. Now not so much. Only hope is Dave Wyman and Blake Martinez like clones emerge from Stanford's indifferent group of linebackers and somehow contain DTR and their two exceptional running backs.

Like Gailtate these absences gall me. Injuries I understand. This is a tough sport. If it is because a player refused to get vaxxed and then tainted his teammates by association tell the offender he no longer has a place on the team. Stanford (or any team) cannot carry this type of baggage around that can come out at the worst possible times. Who else will be out on Saturday?

I've bagged on David Shaw as OC and his insistence on wearing the headsets and carrying the Denny's Menu in light of too-numerous-deficiencies-over-the-years to overlook.  However, I have always believed him to have numerous other qualities that make him a good head coach (IF he would only delegate that offense thing).  One of those qualities is being a good role model for young men and helping them develop into responsible adults.  Thus, I would have expected basically 100% vaccination for Stanford players under his charge - but evidently that is not the case (and pretty significantly not the case).  

I realize that it's hard to persuade certain folks of the advantages of getting vaccinated (though I wouldn't expect many of those to be Stanford students, to be blunt).  Thus, the vax rate percent of Stanford football players is a minor demerit reflecting on the coach.  Again, lots of factors here, but I would have expected better leadership on this front.  And btw, I have that same expectation for all Stanford coaches.

[Brickcity]

This kills me. My wife's alma mater.

Stanford's offense at full strength would have made this a 2020 like thriller. Now not so much. Only hope is Dave Wyman and Blake Martinez like clones emerge from Stanford's indifferent group of linebackers and somehow contain DTR and their two exceptional running backs.

Like Gailtate these absences gall me. Injuries I understand. This is a tough sport. If it is because a player refused to get vaxxed and then tainted his teammates by association tell the offender he no longer has a place on the team. Stanford (or any team) cannot carry this type of baggage around that can come out at the worst possible times. Who else will be out on Saturday?

I've bagged on David Shaw as OC and his insistence on wearing the headsets and carrying the Denny's Menu in light of too-numerous-deficiencies-over-the-years to overlook.  However, I have always believed him to have numerous other qualities that make him a good head coach (IF he would only delegate that offense thing).  One of those qualities is being a good role model for young men and helping them develop into responsible adults.  Thus, I would have expected basically 100% vaccination for Stanford players under his charge - but evidently that is not the case (and pretty significantly not the case).  

I realize that it's hard to persuade certain folks of the advantages of getting vaccinated (though I wouldn't expect many of those to be Stanford students, to be blunt).  Thus, the vax rate percent of Stanford football players is a minor demerit reflecting on the coach.  Again, lots of factors here, but I would have expected better leadership on this front.  And btw, I have that same expectation for all Stanford coaches.

I share the thoughts of all of you. I'm frankly appalled that we have unvaccinated people on the team at this point. Doesn't Stanford mandate that its students be vaccinated? And, if not, why won't Shaw? If they don't want to be vaccinated, they can leave the team. Really, these people are a detriment to the program, not to mention society at large.

[Brickcity]

This kills me. My wife's alma mater.

Stanford's offense at full strength would have made this a 2020 like thriller. Now not so much. Only hope is Dave Wyman and Blake Martinez like clones emerge from Stanford's indifferent group of linebackers and somehow contain DTR and their two exceptional running backs.

Like Gailtate these absences gall me. Injuries I understand. This is a tough sport. If it is because a player refused to get vaxxed and then tainted his teammates by association tell the offender he no longer has a place on the team. Stanford (or any team) cannot carry this type of baggage around that can come out at the worst possible times. Who else will be out on Saturday?

I've bagged on David Shaw as OC and his insistence on wearing the headsets and carrying the Denny's Menu in light of too-numerous-deficiencies-over-the-years to overlook.  However, I have always believed him to have numerous other qualities that make him a good head coach (IF he would only delegate that offense thing).  One of those qualities is being a good role model for young men and helping them develop into responsible adults.  Thus, I would have expected basically 100% vaccination for Stanford players under his charge - but evidently that is not the case (and pretty significantly not the case).  

I realize that it's hard to persuade certain folks of the advantages of getting vaccinated (though I wouldn't expect many of those to be Stanford students, to be blunt).  Thus, the vax rate percent of Stanford football players is a minor demerit reflecting on the coach.  Again, lots of factors here, but I would have expected better leadership on this front.  And btw, I have that same expectation for all Stanford coaches.

I share the thoughts of all of you. I'm frankly appalled that we have unvaccinated people on the team at this point. Doesn't Stanford mandate that its students be vaccinated? And, if not, why won't Shaw? If they don't want to be vaccinated, they can leave the team. Really, these people are a detriment to the program, not to mention society at large.

[gailtate]

This kills me. My wife's alma mater.

Stanford's offense at full strength would have made this a 2020 like thriller. Now not so much. Only hope is Dave Wyman and Blake Martinez like clones emerge from Stanford's indifferent group of linebackers and somehow contain DTR and their two exceptional running backs.

Like Gailtate these absences gall me. Injuries I understand. This is a tough sport. If it is because a player refused to get vaxxed and then tainted his teammates by association tell the offender he no longer has a place on the team. Stanford (or any team) cannot carry this type of baggage around that can come out at the worst possible times. Who else will be out on Saturday?

I've bagged on David Shaw as OC and his insistence on wearing the headsets and carrying the Denny's Menu in light of too-numerous-deficiencies-over-the-years to overlook.  However, I have always believed him to have numerous other qualities that make him a good head coach (IF he would only delegate that offense thing).  One of those qualities is being a good role model for young men and helping them develop into responsible adults.  Thus, I would have expected basically 100% vaccination for Stanford players under his charge - but evidently that is not the case (and pretty significantly not the case).  

I realize that it's hard to persuade certain folks of the advantages of getting vaccinated (though I wouldn't expect many of those to be Stanford students, to be blunt).  Thus, the vax rate percent of Stanford football players is a minor demerit reflecting on the coach.  Again, lots of factors here, but I would have expected better leadership on this front.  And btw, I have that same expectation for all Stanford coaches.

Teej, you are gift-wrapping praise for Shaw with surprisingly lethargic and uncharacteristically faint criticism here. I am sick of hearing how our $9MM coach (and his [gag] million-dollar OC mentee) is so abundantly principled. Shouldn't that be a GIVEN? And now, we are presented with evidence that the vaccine may not be so important after all? AYFKM? And, BTW, I do not place this in the "minor demerit" category. But my primary anal burn is the softness of Shaw's team(s). As an informed friend puts it, "players give what is demanded of them."  

[gailtate]

This kills me. My wife's alma mater.

Stanford's offense at full strength would have made this a 2020 like thriller. Now not so much. Only hope is Dave Wyman and Blake Martinez like clones emerge from Stanford's indifferent group of linebackers and somehow contain DTR and their two exceptional running backs.

Like Gailtate these absences gall me. Injuries I understand. This is a tough sport. If it is because a player refused to get vaxxed and then tainted his teammates by association tell the offender he no longer has a place on the team. Stanford (or any team) cannot carry this type of baggage around that can come out at the worst possible times. Who else will be out on Saturday?

I've bagged on David Shaw as OC and his insistence on wearing the headsets and carrying the Denny's Menu in light of too-numerous-deficiencies-over-the-years to overlook.  However, I have always believed him to have numerous other qualities that make him a good head coach (IF he would only delegate that offense thing).  One of those qualities is being a good role model for young men and helping them develop into responsible adults.  Thus, I would have expected basically 100% vaccination for Stanford players under his charge - but evidently that is not the case (and pretty significantly not the case).  

I realize that it's hard to persuade certain folks of the advantages of getting vaccinated (though I wouldn't expect many of those to be Stanford students, to be blunt).  Thus, the vax rate percent of Stanford football players is a minor demerit reflecting on the coach.  Again, lots of factors here, but I would have expected better leadership on this front.  And btw, I have that same expectation for all Stanford coaches.

Teej, you are gift-wrapping praise for Shaw with surprisingly lethargic and uncharacteristically faint criticism here. I am sick of hearing how our $9MM coach (and his [gag] million-dollar OC mentee) is so abundantly principled. Shouldn't that be a GIVEN? And now, we are presented with evidence that the vaccine may not be so important after all? AYFKM? And, BTW, I do not place this in the "minor demerit" category. But my primary anal burn is the softness of Shaw's team(s). As an informed friend puts it, "players give what is demanded of them."  

[76lsjumb]

Do any of you have a single shred of evidence that someone who is unvaccinated has caused any of the problems you believe to exist? I know of at least 4 people (not players, people within my personal sphere) who tested positive for COVID after being fully vaccinated. 

How do you know that isn’t the case here? Assuming, of course, that this is a COVID situation to begin with.

[76lsjumb]

Do any of you have a single shred of evidence that someone who is unvaccinated has caused any of the problems you believe to exist? I know of at least 4 people (not players, people within my personal sphere) who tested positive for COVID after being fully vaccinated. 

How do you know that isn’t the case here? Assuming, of course, that this is a COVID situation to begin with.

[CowboyIndian]

Someone on another site with a Daily source said the lagging 15% were granted "religious exemptions".

[CowboyIndian]

Someone on another site with a Daily source said the lagging 15% were granted "religious exemptions".

[pcgoode]

A couple of things on this:

1. We have beaten UCLA 9 out of the last 10 times we have played them.

2. While UCLA's pass defense isn't the worst in college football, it is pretty darn close.  126/130! McKee and the receivers should have a field day with this.  http://www.cfbstats.com/2021/leader/nati...ort01.html

[pcgoode]

A couple of things on this:

1. We have beaten UCLA 9 out of the last 10 times we have played them.

2. While UCLA's pass defense isn't the worst in college football, it is pretty darn close.  126/130! McKee and the receivers should have a field day with this.  http://www.cfbstats.com/2021/leader/nati...ort01.html

[gailtate]

Someone on another site with a Daily source said the lagging 15% were granted "religious exemptions".

THAT makes this whole cluster even worse. Glad I had low-bar expectations this season. I got snookered by the fluke in L.A. and after beating the tomato cans in Nashville. I feel like Truman being played like a Rube at the county fair by Stalin in Potsdam.

[gailtate]

Someone on another site with a Daily source said the lagging 15% were granted "religious exemptions".

THAT makes this whole cluster even worse. Glad I had low-bar expectations this season. I got snookered by the fluke in L.A. and after beating the tomato cans in Nashville. I feel like Truman being played like a Rube at the county fair by Stalin in Potsdam.

[Leftcoast]

I want to know who -- other than the usual, oblivious cheerleaders -- thinks this is is going to be an edge-of-your-seat nail-biter tomorrow and WHY. - GailTate

I'd respond but after picking against us in the USC win I think I'd rather be grouped with the "oblivious cheerleaders".  They have more fun.


.

[Leftcoast]

I want to know who -- other than the usual, oblivious cheerleaders -- thinks this is is going to be an edge-of-your-seat nail-biter tomorrow and WHY. - GailTate

I'd respond but after picking against us in the USC win I think I'd rather be grouped with the "oblivious cheerleaders".  They have more fun.


.

[CTcard]

Someone on another site with a Daily source said the lagging 15% were granted "religious exemptions".

THAT makes this whole cluster even worse. Glad I had low-bar expectations this season. I got snookered by the fluke in L.A. and after beating the tomato cans in Nashville. I feel like Truman being played like a Rube at the county fair by Stalin in Potsdam.

So, let me get this straight. The last two actual results have snookered you, but your beliefs about things that haven't actually happened (yet) have revealed to you that the whole season is a write off ...


I do agree with concern about the religious exemptions given the lack of organized religions that are actually against vaccines.

[CTcard]

Someone on another site with a Daily source said the lagging 15% were granted "religious exemptions".

THAT makes this whole cluster even worse. Glad I had low-bar expectations this season. I got snookered by the fluke in L.A. and after beating the tomato cans in Nashville. I feel like Truman being played like a Rube at the county fair by Stalin in Potsdam.

So, let me get this straight. The last two actual results have snookered you, but your beliefs about things that haven't actually happened (yet) have revealed to you that the whole season is a write off ...


I do agree with concern about the religious exemptions given the lack of organized religions that are actually against vaccines.

[CardinalSagehen]

A couple of things on this:

1. We have beaten UCLA 9 out of the last 10 times we have played them.

2. While UCLA's pass defense isn't the worst in college football, it is pretty darn close.  126/130! McKee and the receivers should have a field day with this.  http://www.cfbstats.com/2021/leader/nati...ort01.html

Yes!  Some people here probably picked on a certain CB when he played for us. In fairness, he wasn't great, and I remember being at a game a few years ago when Wazzu gashed him repeatedly.  But he's a Stanford grad and he seems like a very upstanding individual.  Now he starts for the Bruins (which says a lot), and we think he's going to be able to defend our much larger wideouts?!  Pass the rock! 

I am much more concerned about our defense without Noah Williams (on top of all the other DB injuries) than I am about our RB situation or our offense in general.  Nathaniel Peat has unique athletic ability and it may be a blessing in disguise that he gets more carries, assuming he stays healthy and not too gassed.

ESPN's 45% chance seems about right to me.

[CardinalSagehen]

A couple of things on this:

1. We have beaten UCLA 9 out of the last 10 times we have played them.

2. While UCLA's pass defense isn't the worst in college football, it is pretty darn close.  126/130! McKee and the receivers should have a field day with this.  http://www.cfbstats.com/2021/leader/nati...ort01.html

Yes!  Some people here probably picked on a certain CB when he played for us. In fairness, he wasn't great, and I remember being at a game a few years ago when Wazzu gashed him repeatedly.  But he's a Stanford grad and he seems like a very upstanding individual.  Now he starts for the Bruins (which says a lot), and we think he's going to be able to defend our much larger wideouts?!  Pass the rock! 

I am much more concerned about our defense without Noah Williams (on top of all the other DB injuries) than I am about our RB situation or our offense in general.  Nathaniel Peat has unique athletic ability and it may be a blessing in disguise that he gets more carries, assuming he stays healthy and not too gassed.

ESPN's 45% chance seems about right to me.

[Phogge]

"Religious exemptions." Universal Life Church? Anton Levay Black Mass Society? Billy Sunday Revival?

[Phogge]

"Religious exemptions." Universal Life Church? Anton Levay Black Mass Society? Billy Sunday Revival?

[76lsjumb]

Still waiting for evidence of unvaccinated players with COVID. Seen some evidence of what looks suspiciously like religious bigotry, but that’s about it…

[76lsjumb]

Still waiting for evidence of unvaccinated players with COVID. Seen some evidence of what looks suspiciously like religious bigotry, but that’s about it…

[murky]

I didn't understand why it's a big deal to discuss individual players status WRT to Covid affecting their eligibility.

But some of the more recent posts in this thread have convinced me of the wisdom of keeping it private if possible.

[murky]

I didn't understand why it's a big deal to discuss individual players status WRT to Covid affecting their eligibility.

But some of the more recent posts in this thread have convinced me of the wisdom of keeping it private if possible.

[pefloresjr]

I try to let fans vent went they want, even if I think they are complete fools (it is a sports message board) but this thread is ridiculous.  So now we're going off on Shaw over the fact that there are rumors?  And we think he's a lousy coach for the assumed fact that he accepted religious exemptions and wasn't discriminatory enough?  Injuries are largely out of the coach's control once the team is fully committed to proper training and can happen to any team, sometimes in consecutive years.  Just ask the highly paid training staff and coaches for the well run pro teams on the peninsula.  The Giants, Niners, and Warriors have all suffered from lots of injuries in recent years.  It's not the coaches' fault!!!!!  Also, even if there are COVID cases on the team, we know nothing about whether those are break though, asymptomatic cases of the vaccinated.  I don't care about people wondering if COVID is impacting the team and speculating about it, but blaming the coaches based on no evidence is completely absurd.  

I'm worried about our ability to stop the run on defense and to control the game by running on offense.  We will probably have a better chance of controlling the clock with a good West Coast Offense than a running game.  That is my realistic hope for winning the game despite the injuries.  UCLA is favored by a little but to act like we have no chance and our program is in ruins because of injuries this week is ridiculous.  I think we need a few more years of good recruiting, especially on defense, to get back to where I want us to be.  So, call me an oblivious cheerleader or a Shawpologist, but I don't see any point in freaking out over things that neither I nor the coaches can control like random injuries or COVID.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

I try to let fans vent went they want, even if I think they are complete fools (it is a sports message board) but this thread is ridiculous.  So now we're going off on Shaw over the fact that there are rumors?  And we think he's a lousy coach for the assumed fact that he accepted religious exemptions and wasn't discriminatory enough?  Injuries are largely out of the coach's control once the team is fully committed to proper training and can happen to any team, sometimes in consecutive years.  Just ask the highly paid training staff and coaches for the well run pro teams on the peninsula.  The Giants, Niners, and Warriors have all suffered from lots of injuries in recent years.  It's not the coaches' fault!!!!!  Also, even if there are COVID cases on the team, we know nothing about whether those are break though, asymptomatic cases of the vaccinated.  I don't care about people wondering if COVID is impacting the team and speculating about it, but blaming the coaches based on no evidence is completely absurd.  

I'm worried about our ability to stop the run on defense and to control the game by running on offense.  We will probably have a better chance of controlling the clock with a good West Coast Offense than a running game.  That is my realistic hope for winning the game despite the injuries.  UCLA is favored by a little but to act like we have no chance and our program is in ruins because of injuries this week is ridiculous.  I think we need a few more years of good recruiting, especially on defense, to get back to where I want us to be.  So, call me an oblivious cheerleader or a Shawpologist, but I don't see any point in freaking out over things that neither I nor the coaches can control like random injuries or COVID.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[rogpodge]

I didn't understand why it's a big deal to discuss individual players status WRT to Covid affecting their eligibility.

But some of the more recent posts in this thread have convinced me of the wisdom of keeping it private if possible.

With all due respect, do you all not remember the false positives last year that deprived us of Davis Mills for two games?  Also, we have no information about the severity or actual problems re: COVID.  If the COVID "injury" exclusions were OL or DL, with a BMI over 25, the real at risk kids, then maybe I would have some sympathy for the ones who are quick to shame any of these student-athletes.  The vaccine DOES NOT PREVENT infection or spread, rather it greatly reduces the chances of hospitalization or death for a cohort that already is at the least risk for hospitalization or death (other than kids 12 and younger, who we want to make mask, unlike the EU, most of Asia, and the developed world?).  It's like the flu shot... which I get every year... like I got the COVID vaccine.

So yes, some kids want to take advantage of the religious exemption, and Stanford should recognize and accept that as a legitimate reason.  Heck, the middle of campus is Memorial Church, recognizing a bunch of different religious traditions.  The Constitution says that the government has to recognize the free exercise of religion, in the First Amendment.  The Supreme Court just said that California can't run roughshod over the free exercise of religion for COVID reasons.  Does it make things bad?  Yes.  Does it mean those kids are probably available against Oregon?  Yes. 

Get off your high horses, and let's beat UCLA.  David Shaw is good for one unpredicted upset a year, and although USC was favored by 12.5, I'm thinking that one of UCLA or Oregon goes down despite their advantage in the run game versus our run defense.  Get a lead, force them to pass, and win.

[rogpodge]

I didn't understand why it's a big deal to discuss individual players status WRT to Covid affecting their eligibility.

But some of the more recent posts in this thread have convinced me of the wisdom of keeping it private if possible.

With all due respect, do you all not remember the false positives last year that deprived us of Davis Mills for two games?  Also, we have no information about the severity or actual problems re: COVID.  If the COVID "injury" exclusions were OL or DL, with a BMI over 25, the real at risk kids, then maybe I would have some sympathy for the ones who are quick to shame any of these student-athletes.  The vaccine DOES NOT PREVENT infection or spread, rather it greatly reduces the chances of hospitalization or death for a cohort that already is at the least risk for hospitalization or death (other than kids 12 and younger, who we want to make mask, unlike the EU, most of Asia, and the developed world?).  It's like the flu shot... which I get every year... like I got the COVID vaccine.

So yes, some kids want to take advantage of the religious exemption, and Stanford should recognize and accept that as a legitimate reason.  Heck, the middle of campus is Memorial Church, recognizing a bunch of different religious traditions.  The Constitution says that the government has to recognize the free exercise of religion, in the First Amendment.  The Supreme Court just said that California can't run roughshod over the free exercise of religion for COVID reasons.  Does it make things bad?  Yes.  Does it mean those kids are probably available against Oregon?  Yes. 

Get off your high horses, and let's beat UCLA.  David Shaw is good for one unpredicted upset a year, and although USC was favored by 12.5, I'm thinking that one of UCLA or Oregon goes down despite their advantage in the run game versus our run defense.  Get a lead, force them to pass, and win.

[CowboyIndian]

Still waiting for evidence of unvaccinated players with COVID. Seen some evidence of what looks suspiciously like religious bigotry, but that’s about it…

Right...because throughout history religion has done nothing but good and never caused any problems.

[CowboyIndian]

Still waiting for evidence of unvaccinated players with COVID. Seen some evidence of what looks suspiciously like religious bigotry, but that’s about it…

Right...because throughout history religion has done nothing but good and never caused any problems.

[76lsjumb]

Still waiting for evidence of unvaccinated players with COVID. Seen some evidence of what looks suspiciously like religious bigotry, but that’s about it…

Right...because throughout history religion has done nothing but good and never caused any problems.

Wow… I’m not sure to which of the players you are referring, but that seems a little harsh.
Or, perhaps, it’s just a complete non sequitur.

[76lsjumb]

Still waiting for evidence of unvaccinated players with COVID. Seen some evidence of what looks suspiciously like religious bigotry, but that’s about it…

Right...because throughout history religion has done nothing but good and never caused any problems.

Wow… I’m not sure to which of the players you are referring, but that seems a little harsh.
Or, perhaps, it’s just a complete non sequitur.