[tweet]https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status/1338174675357077505?s=21[/tweet]
GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA
12-13-2020, 10:44 AM
Gotta block #24, a heat seeking DB missle prone to blitzing. Plus they have to spy DTR and not miss any tackles on Felton. Tall order, have to control the clock. Where are they practicing Bobbbbbbbbb, Balboa Island?
12-13-2020, 10:51 AM
(12-13-2020, 10:38 AM)BobK Wrote: https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status...77505?s=21Heading to LA county? Terrible idea. Pandemic raging much worse in LA than in the Bay Area. What happens if a player gets seriously hurt? Is there an ICU bed available for him?
(12-13-2020, 10:38 AM)BobK Wrote: https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status...77505?s=21Heading to LA county? Terrible idea. Pandemic raging much worse in LA than in the Bay Area. What happens if a player gets seriously hurt? Is there an ICU bed available for him?
12-13-2020, 10:54 AM
USC and ucla played last night FYI
Staying at section DDs home I’m sure phogge
Staying at section DDs home I’m sure phogge
12-13-2020, 11:33 AM
(12-13-2020, 10:51 AM)McKenwood Wrote:(12-13-2020, 10:38 AM)BobK Wrote: https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status...77505?s=21Heading to LA county? Terrible idea. Pandemic raging much worse in LA than in the Bay Area. What happens if a player gets seriously hurt? Is there an ICU bed available for him?
I think the chances of a college football player being so severely injured to where they'd need an ICU bed is very very very low to the point of not being considered. And at least at the moment, Huntington Hospital in Pasadena has ICU capacity and there are other hospitals within 25 miles as well including three Level 1 trauma centers.
(12-13-2020, 10:51 AM)McKenwood Wrote:(12-13-2020, 10:38 AM)BobK Wrote: https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status...77505?s=21Heading to LA county? Terrible idea. Pandemic raging much worse in LA than in the Bay Area. What happens if a player gets seriously hurt? Is there an ICU bed available for him?
I think the chances of a college football player being so severely injured to where they'd need an ICU bed is very very very low to the point of not being considered. And at least at the moment, Huntington Hospital in Pasadena has ICU capacity and there are other hospitals within 25 miles as well including three Level 1 trauma centers.
12-13-2020, 12:25 PM
I mean, I generally question the wisdom of traveling to or from a pandemic hotspot, but given that the Pac-12 is determined that "the show must go on", I don't know that "they might need an ICU bed" is the deciding factor. I mean, the Stanford bus could get in an accident on the 110 too.
BC
BC
I mean, I generally question the wisdom of traveling to or from a pandemic hotspot, but given that the Pac-12 is determined that "the show must go on", I don't know that "they might need an ICU bed" is the deciding factor. I mean, the Stanford bus could get in an accident on the 110 too.
BC
BC
12-13-2020, 12:53 PM
(12-13-2020, 12:25 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I mean, I generally question the wisdom of traveling to or from a pandemic hotspot, but given that the Pac-12 is determined that "the show must go on", I don't know that "they might need an ICU bed" is the deciding factor. I mean, the Stanford bus could get in an accident on the 110 too.And the Rose Bowl will still host a CFP game in just over 2 weeks from now.
BC
Your average football player or staff member would not need the ICU, though I do realize that it is not consistent with the messaging around a health care emergency to let young men travel, practice and then play a game in that area.
That's how we roll in the USA. And that's why we are where we are, and that's not changing now. I am just waiting for D1 hoops players to move ahead of healthcare workers and LTCF patients in the vaccine line.
To football if Stanford wins, they would be 4-2 and one of potentially just 5 or 6, Pac-12 defined, bowl eligible teams. With only 4 Pac-12 slots remaining after bowl cancellations, and most bowls free to take any active team, I assume Stanford's season will be over.
Still, if the season is not over what would happen between 12/19 and the bowl game. Would they just fly directly to the bowl city?
(12-13-2020, 12:25 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I mean, I generally question the wisdom of traveling to or from a pandemic hotspot, but given that the Pac-12 is determined that "the show must go on", I don't know that "they might need an ICU bed" is the deciding factor. I mean, the Stanford bus could get in an accident on the 110 too.And the Rose Bowl will still host a CFP game in just over 2 weeks from now.
BC
Your average football player or staff member would not need the ICU, though I do realize that it is not consistent with the messaging around a health care emergency to let young men travel, practice and then play a game in that area.
That's how we roll in the USA. And that's why we are where we are, and that's not changing now. I am just waiting for D1 hoops players to move ahead of healthcare workers and LTCF patients in the vaccine line.
To football if Stanford wins, they would be 4-2 and one of potentially just 5 or 6, Pac-12 defined, bowl eligible teams. With only 4 Pac-12 slots remaining after bowl cancellations, and most bowls free to take any active team, I assume Stanford's season will be over.
Still, if the season is not over what would happen between 12/19 and the bowl game. Would they just fly directly to the bowl city?
12-13-2020, 04:42 PM
Looking at this just from a football point of view, this is going to be a difficult test. I never would have thought this at the outset of the season, but UCLA might be the best team on Stanford's schedule. I wish for a lot of things, like we all do, but one of the lower priority items is that I wish I could be at the game. The last Stanford game I missed in the Rose Bowl was 2008, all wins but one.
2010: Stanford 35, UCLA 0. Believe it or not, neither Stanford nor Luck played that well. Two weeks later I started my blog.
2012: Stanford 35, UCLA 17. Six days later we'd beat them again to clinch a Rose Bowl berth.
2013 Rose Bowl: Stanford 20, Wisconsin 14. Like a dream come true.
2014 Rose Bowl: Michigan State 24, Stanford 20. It was still the Rose Bowl, so hard to be disappointed.
2014: Stanford 31, UCLA 10. Destroyed them in the second half and took them out of the conference championship game.
2016 Rose Bowl: Stanford 45, Iowa 16. No comment necessary.
2016: Stanford 22, UCLA 13. The most improbable win in the streak, punctuated by Solomon Thomas's scoop and score.
2018: Stanford 49, UCLA 42. A track meet, and there were perhaps 20,000 fans, one of the smallest Rose Bowl crowds ever.
2010: Stanford 35, UCLA 0. Believe it or not, neither Stanford nor Luck played that well. Two weeks later I started my blog.
2012: Stanford 35, UCLA 17. Six days later we'd beat them again to clinch a Rose Bowl berth.
2013 Rose Bowl: Stanford 20, Wisconsin 14. Like a dream come true.
2014 Rose Bowl: Michigan State 24, Stanford 20. It was still the Rose Bowl, so hard to be disappointed.
2014: Stanford 31, UCLA 10. Destroyed them in the second half and took them out of the conference championship game.
2016 Rose Bowl: Stanford 45, Iowa 16. No comment necessary.
2016: Stanford 22, UCLA 13. The most improbable win in the streak, punctuated by Solomon Thomas's scoop and score.
2018: Stanford 49, UCLA 42. A track meet, and there were perhaps 20,000 fans, one of the smallest Rose Bowl crowds ever.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
Looking at this just from a football point of view, this is going to be a difficult test. I never would have thought this at the outset of the season, but UCLA might be the best team on Stanford's schedule. I wish for a lot of things, like we all do, but one of the lower priority items is that I wish I could be at the game. The last Stanford game I missed in the Rose Bowl was 2008, all wins but one.
2010: Stanford 35, UCLA 0. Believe it or not, neither Stanford nor Luck played that well. Two weeks later I started my blog.
2012: Stanford 35, UCLA 17. Six days later we'd beat them again to clinch a Rose Bowl berth.
2013 Rose Bowl: Stanford 20, Wisconsin 14. Like a dream come true.
2014 Rose Bowl: Michigan State 24, Stanford 20. It was still the Rose Bowl, so hard to be disappointed.
2014: Stanford 31, UCLA 10. Destroyed them in the second half and took them out of the conference championship game.
2016 Rose Bowl: Stanford 45, Iowa 16. No comment necessary.
2016: Stanford 22, UCLA 13. The most improbable win in the streak, punctuated by Solomon Thomas's scoop and score.
2018: Stanford 49, UCLA 42. A track meet, and there were perhaps 20,000 fans, one of the smallest Rose Bowl crowds ever.
2010: Stanford 35, UCLA 0. Believe it or not, neither Stanford nor Luck played that well. Two weeks later I started my blog.
2012: Stanford 35, UCLA 17. Six days later we'd beat them again to clinch a Rose Bowl berth.
2013 Rose Bowl: Stanford 20, Wisconsin 14. Like a dream come true.
2014 Rose Bowl: Michigan State 24, Stanford 20. It was still the Rose Bowl, so hard to be disappointed.
2014: Stanford 31, UCLA 10. Destroyed them in the second half and took them out of the conference championship game.
2016 Rose Bowl: Stanford 45, Iowa 16. No comment necessary.
2016: Stanford 22, UCLA 13. The most improbable win in the streak, punctuated by Solomon Thomas's scoop and score.
2018: Stanford 49, UCLA 42. A track meet, and there were perhaps 20,000 fans, one of the smallest Rose Bowl crowds ever.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
12-13-2020, 05:13 PM
(12-13-2020, 04:42 PM)Hank 91 Wrote: Looking at this just from a football point of view, this is going to be a difficult test. I never would have thought this at the outset of the season, but UCLA might be the best team on Stanford's schedule.
Agreed. I would much rather face USC than UCLA.
USC has all those WR's who will catch anything thrown in their general direction. However against UCLA I don't think we can both defend the pass and stop DTR from running. He's a classic Chip Kelly QB.
Watching USC vs. UCLA last night, I thought UCLA looked like the better team for most of the game. For those of you who missed it, UCLA was up by 18 at one point but USC came back in the 4th quarter. UCLA drove down the field but got stopped a couple of yards shy of the last first down they needed to run out the clock, so they kicked a field goal with 52 seconds left. The ensuing kickoff to USC was short, and USC returned it across midfield. Another pass took USC down to the 7 yard line, and the next pass was into the end zone with 16 seconds left to win the game.
(12-13-2020, 04:42 PM)Hank 91 Wrote: Looking at this just from a football point of view, this is going to be a difficult test. I never would have thought this at the outset of the season, but UCLA might be the best team on Stanford's schedule.
Agreed. I would much rather face USC than UCLA.
USC has all those WR's who will catch anything thrown in their general direction. However against UCLA I don't think we can both defend the pass and stop DTR from running. He's a classic Chip Kelly QB.
Watching USC vs. UCLA last night, I thought UCLA looked like the better team for most of the game. For those of you who missed it, UCLA was up by 18 at one point but USC came back in the 4th quarter. UCLA drove down the field but got stopped a couple of yards shy of the last first down they needed to run out the clock, so they kicked a field goal with 52 seconds left. The ensuing kickoff to USC was short, and USC returned it across midfield. Another pass took USC down to the 7 yard line, and the next pass was into the end zone with 16 seconds left to win the game.
12-13-2020, 05:37 PM
(12-13-2020, 05:13 PM)cctop Wrote:That is the third time this season that USC has won a game that only happened because of awful 4th quarter and/or last minute decisions by the opponents.(12-13-2020, 04:42 PM)Hank 91 Wrote: Looking at this just from a football point of view, this is going to be a difficult test. I never would have thought this at the outset of the season, but UCLA might be the best team on Stanford's schedule.
Agreed. I would much rather face USC than UCLA.
USC has all those WR's who will catch anything thrown in their general direction. However against UCLA I don't think we can both defend the pass and stop DTR from running. He's a classic Chip Kelly QB.
Watching USC vs. UCLA last night, I thought UCLA looked like the better team for most of the game. For those of you who missed it, UCLA was up by 18 at one point but USC came back in the 4th quarter. UCLA drove down the field but got stopped a couple of yards shy of the last first down they needed to run out the clock, so they kicked a field goal with 52 seconds left. The ensuing kickoff to USC was short, and USC returned it across midfield. Another pass took USC down to the 7 yard line, and the next pass was into the end zone with 16 seconds left to win the game.
UCLA has been playing better, but they were playing USC on Saturday. They might not play with as much passion this weekend.
FWIW - Stanford might look tough to a UCLA fan. Stanford had more restrictive summer practice rules, but has played better as the season moved along. Stanford starting QB's test logistics were factors in both losses. Stanford has played, practiced, and lived on the road for multiple weeks, and even with that Stanford has won 3 in a row.
(12-13-2020, 05:13 PM)cctop Wrote:That is the third time this season that USC has won a game that only happened because of awful 4th quarter and/or last minute decisions by the opponents.(12-13-2020, 04:42 PM)Hank 91 Wrote: Looking at this just from a football point of view, this is going to be a difficult test. I never would have thought this at the outset of the season, but UCLA might be the best team on Stanford's schedule.
Agreed. I would much rather face USC than UCLA.
USC has all those WR's who will catch anything thrown in their general direction. However against UCLA I don't think we can both defend the pass and stop DTR from running. He's a classic Chip Kelly QB.
Watching USC vs. UCLA last night, I thought UCLA looked like the better team for most of the game. For those of you who missed it, UCLA was up by 18 at one point but USC came back in the 4th quarter. UCLA drove down the field but got stopped a couple of yards shy of the last first down they needed to run out the clock, so they kicked a field goal with 52 seconds left. The ensuing kickoff to USC was short, and USC returned it across midfield. Another pass took USC down to the 7 yard line, and the next pass was into the end zone with 16 seconds left to win the game.
UCLA has been playing better, but they were playing USC on Saturday. They might not play with as much passion this weekend.
FWIW - Stanford might look tough to a UCLA fan. Stanford had more restrictive summer practice rules, but has played better as the season moved along. Stanford starting QB's test logistics were factors in both losses. Stanford has played, practiced, and lived on the road for multiple weeks, and even with that Stanford has won 3 in a row.
12-13-2020, 07:07 PM
Update from Stanford on practice this week and declining a bowl game.
https://gostanford.com/news/2020/12/13/s...pdate.aspx
https://gostanford.com/news/2020/12/13/s...pdate.aspx
Update from Stanford on practice this week and declining a bowl game.
https://gostanford.com/news/2020/12/13/s...pdate.aspx
https://gostanford.com/news/2020/12/13/s...pdate.aspx
(12-13-2020, 04:42 PM)Hank 91 Wrote: Looking at this just from a football point of view, this is going to be a difficult test. I never would have thought this at the outset of the season, but UCLA might be the best team on Stanford's schedule.
...
2018: Stanford 49, UCLA 42. A track meet, and there were perhaps 20,000 fans, one of the smallest Rose Bowl crowds ever.
In many aspects of the game, UCLA may be playing the best football in the Pac. However, the usual determinant factor in football has been particularly strong in UCLA's season.
In their three wins, UCLA gave up 0, 0, and 1 turnover. Won those by an average of 16 points.
In their three losses, UCLA gave up 4, 4, and 3 turnovers. Lost those by an average of 4.7 points.
UCLA is tied with UA for giving up the most turnovers on the season, though UA had the majority of those last Friday.
Stanford leads the conference in giving up TOs (2), that has helped a ton.
(12-13-2020, 04:42 PM)Hank 91 Wrote: Looking at this just from a football point of view, this is going to be a difficult test. I never would have thought this at the outset of the season, but UCLA might be the best team on Stanford's schedule.
...
2018: Stanford 49, UCLA 42. A track meet, and there were perhaps 20,000 fans, one of the smallest Rose Bowl crowds ever.
In many aspects of the game, UCLA may be playing the best football in the Pac. However, the usual determinant factor in football has been particularly strong in UCLA's season.
In their three wins, UCLA gave up 0, 0, and 1 turnover. Won those by an average of 16 points.
In their three losses, UCLA gave up 4, 4, and 3 turnovers. Lost those by an average of 4.7 points.
UCLA is tied with UA for giving up the most turnovers on the season, though UA had the majority of those last Friday.
Stanford leads the conference in giving up TOs (2), that has helped a ton.
12-13-2020, 09:33 PM
(12-13-2020, 07:07 PM)chrisk Wrote: Update from Stanford on practice this week and declining a bowl game.Stanford was likely to go without a bowl invitation anyway. This is probably the right call, and better to do it before it becomes clear no one wants a small private school from the Pac-12 to be in their southern USA bowl when a number of 2 and 3 win teams from the Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC would be great options if options were needed.
https://gostanford.com/news/2020/12/13/s...pdate.aspx
In any event this will be best for the student-athletes, their families, and for any NFL prospects on the roster.
(12-13-2020, 07:07 PM)chrisk Wrote: Update from Stanford on practice this week and declining a bowl game.Stanford was likely to go without a bowl invitation anyway. This is probably the right call, and better to do it before it becomes clear no one wants a small private school from the Pac-12 to be in their southern USA bowl when a number of 2 and 3 win teams from the Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC would be great options if options were needed.
https://gostanford.com/news/2020/12/13/s...pdate.aspx
In any event this will be best for the student-athletes, their families, and for any NFL prospects on the roster.
12-13-2020, 10:10 PM
12-13-2020, 10:41 PM
Cal and Arizona have cancelled their finale due to limited players available due to COVID.
12-14-2020, 10:45 AM
(12-13-2020, 10:51 AM)McKenwood Wrote:(12-13-2020, 10:38 AM)BobK Wrote: https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status...77505?s=21Heading to LA county? Terrible idea. Pandemic raging much worse in LA than in the Bay Area. What happens if a player gets seriously hurt? Is there an ICU bed available for him?
Thank goodness Santa Clara County forced our football and basketball teams to go vagabond rather than stay at home and play under restrictions. Somewhere .Dean Wormser is loving it. In all,seriousness, the r well meaning (as long as my heart is right, I’m not responsible for the results), Santa Clara “ one size fits all” and “Wadda ya mean your Stanford?”approach is an embarrassment. It put our athletes at risk and that did not have to happen. .anyway we can move To San Mateo.?
(12-13-2020, 10:51 AM)McKenwood Wrote:(12-13-2020, 10:38 AM)BobK Wrote: https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status...77505?s=21Heading to LA county? Terrible idea. Pandemic raging much worse in LA than in the Bay Area. What happens if a player gets seriously hurt? Is there an ICU bed available for him?
Thank goodness Santa Clara County forced our football and basketball teams to go vagabond rather than stay at home and play under restrictions. Somewhere .Dean Wormser is loving it. In all,seriousness, the r well meaning (as long as my heart is right, I’m not responsible for the results), Santa Clara “ one size fits all” and “Wadda ya mean your Stanford?”approach is an embarrassment. It put our athletes at risk and that did not have to happen. .anyway we can move To San Mateo.?
12-14-2020, 11:34 AM
(12-14-2020, 10:45 AM)Mudhead Wrote:Stanford athletics can't do that. The creek waters magic properties are priced too high for the department's budget.(12-13-2020, 10:51 AM)McKenwood Wrote:(12-13-2020, 10:38 AM)BobK Wrote: https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status...77505?s=21Heading to LA county? Terrible idea. Pandemic raging much worse in LA than in the Bay Area. What happens if a player gets seriously hurt? Is there an ICU bed available for him?
Thank goodness Santa Clara County forced our football and basketball teams to go vagabond rather than stay at home and play under restrictions. Somewhere .Dean Wormser is loving it. In all,seriousness, the r well meaning (as long as my heart is right, I’m not responsible for the results), Santa Clara “ one size fits all” and “Wadda ya mean your Stanford?”approach is an embarrassment. It put our athletes at risk and that did not have to happen. .anyway we can move To San Mateo.?
(12-14-2020, 10:45 AM)Mudhead Wrote:Stanford athletics can't do that. The creek waters magic properties are priced too high for the department's budget.(12-13-2020, 10:51 AM)McKenwood Wrote:(12-13-2020, 10:38 AM)BobK Wrote: https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status...77505?s=21Heading to LA county? Terrible idea. Pandemic raging much worse in LA than in the Bay Area. What happens if a player gets seriously hurt? Is there an ICU bed available for him?
Thank goodness Santa Clara County forced our football and basketball teams to go vagabond rather than stay at home and play under restrictions. Somewhere .Dean Wormser is loving it. In all,seriousness, the r well meaning (as long as my heart is right, I’m not responsible for the results), Santa Clara “ one size fits all” and “Wadda ya mean your Stanford?”approach is an embarrassment. It put our athletes at risk and that did not have to happen. .anyway we can move To San Mateo.?
12-14-2020, 11:34 AM
I agree that a coordinated response makes much more sense than an arbitrary local restriction. But maybe the problem is that too many other locations are too deferential to college and professional sports and that maybe it should have all been shut down until the spring. Scott Morrow (the county health commissioner in San Mateo, who pointedly decided not to join the rest of the Bay Area in imposing a local stay at home order) noted how ridiculous it was to impose restrictions on a lot of conduct, but to exempt sports.
https://www.smchealth.org/health-officer...-statement
[*]
Also, there is a universe in which Stanford athletics says "while we disagree with restrictions on athletics because we believe we can do it safely, we respect the decision of the Santa Clara health commissioner and will temporarily halt further athletic activities until the order is lifted."
So, yes, we have a situation where the unintended consequence of the restrictions is to increase the risk. However, you can't hang all of it on the County. The State, the NCAA, the Pac-12, and Stanford are all complicit.
BC
https://www.smchealth.org/health-officer...-statement
[*]
Quote:That the State considers pro sports a critical infrastructure (essential) activity undermines this whole rubric in my mind. Pro sports is very nice to have and is probably a pleasant distraction. It is not essential. (Granted, I could be very wrong on this point. Maybe keeping millions of people home watching sports on TV without mixing households is exactly what we should do more of. Of course, if folks stay home watching TV and gather with other households, it could be much worse.)
Also, there is a universe in which Stanford athletics says "while we disagree with restrictions on athletics because we believe we can do it safely, we respect the decision of the Santa Clara health commissioner and will temporarily halt further athletic activities until the order is lifted."
So, yes, we have a situation where the unintended consequence of the restrictions is to increase the risk. However, you can't hang all of it on the County. The State, the NCAA, the Pac-12, and Stanford are all complicit.
BC
I agree that a coordinated response makes much more sense than an arbitrary local restriction. But maybe the problem is that too many other locations are too deferential to college and professional sports and that maybe it should have all been shut down until the spring. Scott Morrow (the county health commissioner in San Mateo, who pointedly decided not to join the rest of the Bay Area in imposing a local stay at home order) noted how ridiculous it was to impose restrictions on a lot of conduct, but to exempt sports.
https://www.smchealth.org/health-officer...-statement
[*]
Also, there is a universe in which Stanford athletics says "while we disagree with restrictions on athletics because we believe we can do it safely, we respect the decision of the Santa Clara health commissioner and will temporarily halt further athletic activities until the order is lifted."
So, yes, we have a situation where the unintended consequence of the restrictions is to increase the risk. However, you can't hang all of it on the County. The State, the NCAA, the Pac-12, and Stanford are all complicit.
BC
https://www.smchealth.org/health-officer...-statement
[*]
Quote:That the State considers pro sports a critical infrastructure (essential) activity undermines this whole rubric in my mind. Pro sports is very nice to have and is probably a pleasant distraction. It is not essential. (Granted, I could be very wrong on this point. Maybe keeping millions of people home watching sports on TV without mixing households is exactly what we should do more of. Of course, if folks stay home watching TV and gather with other households, it could be much worse.)
Also, there is a universe in which Stanford athletics says "while we disagree with restrictions on athletics because we believe we can do it safely, we respect the decision of the Santa Clara health commissioner and will temporarily halt further athletic activities until the order is lifted."
So, yes, we have a situation where the unintended consequence of the restrictions is to increase the risk. However, you can't hang all of it on the County. The State, the NCAA, the Pac-12, and Stanford are all complicit.
BC
12-14-2020, 11:54 AM
Well I would add BC the current feds
Also Santa Clara and SJS affected the same as stanford
Also Santa Clara and SJS affected the same as stanford
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »