GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA (/thread-21161.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: GAME THREAD -- Football vs. UCLA (/thread-21161.html)
RE: Football at ucla - Papa John - 12-14-2020
Looks like Stanford's football team is practicing at La Playa Stadium on the Santa Barbara City College campus:
https://keyt.com/sports/local-sports/2020/12/13/stanford-football-will-practice-in-santa-barbara-before-ucla-game/
For those who have never been, SBCC is across Cabrillo Blvd. from the waterfront. The football stadium has stands on the inland side only, so one can view concurrently football, Stearns Wharf, the harbor, ocean-going vessels in the Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Cruz Island (and other islands if it's particulary clear). For casual dining on the sand, I recommend Shoreline Cafe.
https://www.sbccvaqueros.com/information/Facilities
Nothing against Corvallis, but this is a well-deserved upgrade for the football team!
RE: Football at ucla - BobK - 12-14-2020
It’s a fantastic stadium. I used to go to the old Santa Barbara Relays track meet back in the day.
RE: Football at ucla - JJJ - 12-14-2020
(12-14-2020, 11:55 AM)Papa John Wrote: Looks like Stanford's football team is practicing at La Playa Stadium on the Santa Barbara City College campus:
https://keyt.com/sports/local-sports/2020/12/13/stanford-football-will-practice-in-santa-barbara-before-ucla-game/
For those who have never been, SBCC is across Cabrillo Blvd. from the waterfront. The football stadium has stands on the inland side only, so one can view concurrently football, Stearns Wharf, the harbor, ocean-going vessels in the Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Cruz Island (and other islands if it's particulary clear). For casual dining on the sand, I recommend Shoreline Cafe.
https://www.sbccvaqueros.com/information/Facilities
Nothing against Corvallis, but this is a well-deserved upgrade for the football team!
Thanks for sharing. Looks awesome. Good for our guys!
RE: Football at ucla - Mick - 12-14-2020
(12-14-2020, 11:56 AM)BobK Wrote: It’s a fantastic stadium. I used to go to the old Santa Barbara Relays track meet back in the day.
Brophy Brothers Seafood right across the street. Made 2x annual pilgrimages there between 2008 and 2014.
Mudhead - Mudhead - 12-14-2020
(12-14-2020, 11:54 AM)BobK Wrote: Well I would add BC the current feds
Also Santa Clara and SJS affected the same as stanford
Accept all points made as legitimate considerations. And it turns an old saying on its head “ success has a thousand parents but failure is an orphan child”. I think we are adding a corollary ..if the f up is monumental enough , it indeed has quite a few parents.
But I cant agree. Let’s not get cosmic here and blame fate, Stanford, the NCAA, the PAC 12 ,Trump and the Chinese. All of those bear some responsibility for where we are with .Covids and football.
But it was Santa Clara County alone, acting with no showing of “science” that Stanford’s football and basketball teams were contributing to the .Covids outbreak, who unilaterally shut down collegiate (especially Stanford) sports . Maybe they thought these teams would just roll over paws up like a punished puppy and accept the end of a season and the end of dreams every kid on the teams has worked hard for for at least a decade. But they should have been smart enough to know they would force the teams to abandon a safe home base and go vagabond.
Or they could have simply asked before they edicted. Small people given great power by fate rarely have the Humility to talk to those affected . I apologize for getting a tad emotional . Maybe there were discussions and science of which I am unaware .
But I see narrow people with way too much power acting arrogantly. It makes me angry, but so what? What really hurts is what they have done to these athletes.
And now I will shut up..no doubt to thunderous applause. Thanks for letting me vent.
RE: Football at ucla - BobK - 12-14-2020
I for one applaud your excellent vent
Thank you
lex24 - lex24 - 12-14-2020
(12-14-2020, 06:31 PM)Mudhead Wrote:(12-14-2020, 11:54 AM)BobK Wrote: Well I would add BC the current feds
Also Santa Clara and SJS affected the same as stanford
Accept all points made as legitimate considerations. And it turns an old saying on its head “ success has a thousand parents but failure is an orphan child”. I think we are adding a corollary ..if the f up is monumental enough , it indeed has quite a few parents.
But I cant agree. Let’s not get cosmic here and blame fate, Stanford, the NCAA, the PAC 12 ,Trump and the Chinese. All of those bear some responsibility for where we are with .Covids and football.
But it was Santa Clara County alone, acting with no showing of “science” that Stanford’s football and basketball teams were contributing to the .Covids outbreak, who unilaterally shut down collegiate (especially Stanford) sports . Maybe they thought these teams would just roll over paws up like a punished puppy and accept the end of a season and the end of dreams every kid on the teams has worked hard for for at least a decade. But they should have been smart enough to know they would force the teams to abandon a safe home base and go vagabond.
Or they could have simply asked before they edicted. Small people given great power by fate rarely have the Humility to talk to those affected . I apologize for getting a tad emotional . Maybe there were discussions and science of which I am unaware .
But I see narrow people with way too much power acting arrogantly. It makes me angry, but so what? What really hurts is what they have done to these athletes.
And now I will shut up..no doubt to thunderous applause. Thanks for letting me vent.
Well said.
RE: Football at ucla - JJJ - 12-14-2020
Tangential for here but I’m now seeing that CFP might relocate away from Rose Bowl.
RE: Football at ucla - teejers1 - 12-14-2020
(12-14-2020, 06:52 PM)JJJ Wrote: Tangential for here but I’m now seeing that CFP might relocate away from Rose Bowl.
They should play the gam where Stanford is practicing. That place looks sweeeeeeeeet!!
P.S. Mudhead, I don't think you have to wonder if there was much communication between SCC and the affected sports entities, at least based on the public reaction of Shanahan and others within the 'Niners organization. [BTW, I'm still sticking with my conspiracy theory of "SCC wanted to stick it to the 'Niners and they included SJSU, SCU, and Stanford merely as 'cover' for their 'Niners animus."]
RE: Football at ucla - BostonCard - 12-14-2020
I've posted elsewhere but it the Santa Clara county directive did not come out of thin air.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/11/28/why-europes-second-less-severe-lockdowns-are-working
Quote:We found two ways that lockdowns suppress R. First, reducing trips to work helps, as do fewer outings to restaurants, bars and shops, though the effect of those leisure settings may vary a lot. (Usage of parks or public transport had no impact, perhaps because visitors are outside or wearing masks.) Second, lockdowns deter people from travelling to other local authorities. This is probably the most important factor in decreasing R overall.
Given that athletic contests involve traveling to other local authorities, it makes sense to restrict them. Ultimately the county has to draw up a list of activities that are allowed and those that should be restricted. It will by definition be somewhat arbitrary. And while we can all agree that healthcare and the provision of food (including grocery stores) are essential, it gets very murky very quickly after that
Even Scott Morrow (San Mateo County's health commissioner), who opposed the Bay Area's stay at home order, noted the silliness in exempting professional (let alone collegiate) sports from the state's restrictions.
https://www.smchealth.org/health-officer-updates/december-7-2020-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.)
I'm a fan just like you guys are, and while it is tempting to believe that the county health authority is being unreasonable and restrictive for no good reason, the truth is the exact opposite; the state and county are under immense pressure from business and financial interests that really don't want to close (and who can blame them), and unfortunately, this virus preys on wishywashyness, on the desire to get just a bit closer, to see one more person, to do one more activity, to get one more exception or exemption because what we want to do "is important and can be made mostly safe". But it is this temptation, which is almost entirely banal in the individual, but which cumulatively is leading to a worse situation than we had back in March.
With a Pfizer vaccine recently getting an EUA (and other right behind), we ought to be buckling down and doing our best to drive down infections for the next few months until the vaccine can be widely deployed, and that really does mean minimizing any non-essential activity, including travel for intercollegiate athletics. It is incredibly painful, but not as painful as it is for the relatives of the 300,000 people who have died from COVID-19 or the 110,000 people currently in the hospital with the disease. With the arrival of the vaccine, any transmission we can delay today, every person who can avoid getting the virus (not to mention giving it to someone else) is one person who may be able to be vaccinated before their next exposure and an entire chain of transmissions that can be blocked.
BC
RE: Football at ucla - Mick - 12-14-2020
(12-14-2020, 06:52 PM)JJJ Wrote: Tangential for here but I’m now seeing that CFP might relocate away from Rose Bowl.
I don't see it. The Rose Bowl is a great venue, in very nice weather, during a time of year when most of the rest of the country is snowed under. It's still a major bowl with major ratings. Last season, it had the most physical attendance of all bowls (90,462) and has led all major bowls (except for NCAA title games) in attendance every year since 1945. It was the second-most-watched non-semifinal game with 16.3 million viewers. By comparison, the Citrus Bowl (Michigan v. Alabama) had 14 million viewers.
I doubt the CFP wants to relocate away from the Rose Bowl.
RE: Football at ucla - chrisk - 12-14-2020
(12-14-2020, 10:51 PM)Mick Wrote:(12-14-2020, 06:52 PM)JJJ Wrote: Tangential for here but I’m now seeing that CFP might relocate away from Rose Bowl.
I don't see it. The Rose Bowl is a great venue, in very nice weather, during a time of year when most of the rest of the country is snowed under. It's still a major bowl with major ratings. Last season, it had the most physical attendance of all bowls (90,462) and has led all major bowls (except for NCAA title games) in attendance every year since 1945. It was the second-most-watched non-semifinal game with 16.3 million viewers. By comparison, the Citrus Bowl (Michigan v. Alabama) had 14 million viewers.
I doubt the CFP wants to relocate away from the Rose Bowl.
The fans from the South want to be able to ATTEND the game in person.
RE: Football at ucla - JJJ - 12-15-2020
(12-14-2020, 10:57 PM)chrisk Wrote:(12-14-2020, 10:51 PM)Mick Wrote:(12-14-2020, 06:52 PM)JJJ Wrote: Tangential for here but I’m now seeing that CFP might relocate away from Rose Bowl.
I don't see it. The Rose Bowl is a great venue, in very nice weather, during a time of year when most of the rest of the country is snowed under. It's still a major bowl with major ratings. Last season, it had the most physical attendance of all bowls (90,462) and has led all major bowls (except for NCAA title games) in attendance every year since 1945. It was the second-most-watched non-semifinal game with 16.3 million viewers. By comparison, the Citrus Bowl (Michigan v. Alabama) had 14 million viewers.
I doubt the CFP wants to relocate away from the Rose Bowl.
The fans from the South want to be able to ATTEND the game in person.
Just to clarify, I didn’t mean I was clairvoyant or anything. I meant I saw a (paywalled Athletic) piece saying that, quoting “sources” that something might be decided this week. :)
RE: Football at ucla - teejers1 - 12-15-2020
(12-14-2020, 10:57 PM)chrisk Wrote:(12-14-2020, 10:51 PM)Mick Wrote:(12-14-2020, 06:52 PM)JJJ Wrote: Tangential for here but I’m now seeing that CFP might relocate away from Rose Bowl.
I don't see it. The Rose Bowl is a great venue, in very nice weather, during a time of year when most of the rest of the country is snowed under. It's still a major bowl with major ratings. Last season, it had the most physical attendance of all bowls (90,462) and has led all major bowls (except for NCAA title games) in attendance every year since 1945. It was the second-most-watched non-semifinal game with 16.3 million viewers. By comparison, the Citrus Bowl (Michigan v. Alabama) had 14 million viewers.
I doubt the CFP wants to relocate away from the Rose Bowl.
The fans from the South want to be able to ATTEND the game in person.
And the business (hotel and restaurant) owners want the fans to attend the game, too, I bet. Oh, but those folks might not be from "the South," unless you include southern California in your definition of "the South" . . . which you might!
Your gratuitous denigration aside, you have a point that fan attendance and desire for same from multiple interest groups might drive a relocation.
RE: Football at ucla - BostonCard - 12-15-2020
(12-15-2020, 11:37 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-14-2020, 10:57 PM)chrisk Wrote:(12-14-2020, 10:51 PM)Mick Wrote:(12-14-2020, 06:52 PM)JJJ Wrote: Tangential for here but I’m now seeing that CFP might relocate away from Rose Bowl.
I don't see it. The Rose Bowl is a great venue, in very nice weather, during a time of year when most of the rest of the country is snowed under. It's still a major bowl with major ratings. Last season, it had the most physical attendance of all bowls (90,462) and has led all major bowls (except for NCAA title games) in attendance every year since 1945. It was the second-most-watched non-semifinal game with 16.3 million viewers. By comparison, the Citrus Bowl (Michigan v. Alabama) had 14 million viewers.
I doubt the CFP wants to relocate away from the Rose Bowl.
The fans from the South want to be able to ATTEND the game in person.
And the business (hotel and restaurant) owners want the fans to attend the game, too, I bet. Oh, but those folks might not be from "the South," unless you include southern California in your definition of "the South" . . . which you might!
Your gratuitous denigration aside, you have a point that fan attendance and desire for same from multiple interest groups might drive a relocation.
Yes, fans from Ohio and Indiana too. Certain fans from the west would also love to attend a CFP playoff, but none of their teams will be there.
BC
RE: Football at ucla - French Rage - 12-15-2020
Will UCLA still be allowed to have tardnugget fans in the stands blowing whistles during gameplay like they did here last year?
RE: Football at ucla - BostonCard - 12-15-2020
[tweet]https://twitter.com/pac12/status/1338951968304218114?s=20[/tweet]
Kick-off now at 4 pm.
BC
RE: Football at ucla - Phogge - 12-15-2020
Kickoff at four... until that gets changed tomorrow.
RE: Football at ucla - old spanish trail - 12-15-2020
(12-15-2020, 02:48 PM)Phogge Wrote: Kickoff at four... until that gets changed tomorrow._____________________________________________
We will score but we are going to be crushed. Predict 40-25.
RE: Football at ucla - JJJ - 12-16-2020
(12-15-2020, 11:42 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-15-2020, 11:37 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-14-2020, 10:57 PM)chrisk Wrote:(12-14-2020, 10:51 PM)Mick Wrote:(12-14-2020, 06:52 PM)JJJ Wrote: Tangential for here but I’m now seeing that CFP might relocate away from Rose Bowl.
I don't see it. The Rose Bowl is a great venue, in very nice weather, during a time of year when most of the rest of the country is snowed under. It's still a major bowl with major ratings. Last season, it had the most physical attendance of all bowls (90,462) and has led all major bowls (except for NCAA title games) in attendance every year since 1945. It was the second-most-watched non-semifinal game with 16.3 million viewers. By comparison, the Citrus Bowl (Michigan v. Alabama) had 14 million viewers.
I doubt the CFP wants to relocate away from the Rose Bowl.
The fans from the South want to be able to ATTEND the game in person.
And the business (hotel and restaurant) owners want the fans to attend the game, too, I bet. Oh, but those folks might not be from "the South," unless you include southern California in your definition of "the South" . . . which you might!
Your gratuitous denigration aside, you have a point that fan attendance and desire for same from multiple interest groups might drive a relocation.
Yes, fans from Ohio and Indiana too. Certain fans from the west would also love to attend a CFP playoff, but none of their teams will be there.
BC
Here's a 5-day old non-paywalled story I just found:
Quote:But in a college football season that’s sputtering to a finish because of a global pandemic and significant spikes in COVID-19 cases, the fate of the Rose Bowl — or at least a conventional one playing in its namesake — appears to be in flux. And with the Rose Bowl slated to be one of the College Football Playoff semifinals this season, there are even more complications.
The Rose Bowl is fine if you ask the Rose Bowl brass. Executive director David Eads told Yahoo Sports this week that he’s “confident we’ll be able to host the Rose Bowl game in the Rose Bowl Stadium this season.”
Around college athletics, there’s not nearly as much confidence. Multiple sources told Yahoo Sports there are discussions and contingencies about alternative sites and plans for the Rose Bowl this season. According to sources, those options include playing the Rose Bowl in a different location — AT&T Stadium in the Dallas area is a popular suggestion.
The College Football Playoff could also move the semifinal game to another site and have the Rose Bowl host some semblance of a traditional game there. A new CFP semifinal location in a place like Indianapolis or Atlanta, in theory, could be more geographically friendly to schools that make the playoff.
There are a few central tension points for the Rose Bowl, most of which revolve around the virus spike in Southern California and the current stay-at-home order that is expected to last through Christmas. Already, three of the four bowl games scheduled in the state of California have been canceled.
And apparently this is one of the main issues:
Quote:The decision for no fans or family members to be allowed in the Rose Bowl looms large, as it presents a standoff between the Rose Bowl’s tradition and the wishes of the schools and players to have families attend the game.
The Rose Bowl made clear they’ve asked for special permission for families to attend and so far have been denied. This looms as a key for them hosting the game in the eyes of college sports officials.
“They have obviously come out and said there will be no spectators,” an industry source said. “I understand there’s some complications that come with that if there’s truly zero people in the building. That’s the issue that’s being discussed.”
None of the teams ranked in the CFP’s top six are within 1,400 miles of the Rose Bowl. Hence, traveling that distance to an area handcuffed by regulations and not allowing family to watch the game would be a significant issue.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/is-the-rose-bowl-in-jeopardy-doubt-looms-over-one-of-the-sports-grand-traditions-014130430.html