[teejers1]

Teejers1 you have changed my thinking about SCC extending the sports ban.  I haven't been reading the Covid board comments so I don't know the SCC timeline.   When does the existing ban end? 

Uh oh.  Paloalto, the group buying into my "conspiracy theory" about SCC health regulators' targeting 'Niners (and including colleges for cover) has exactly zero adherents, afaik!  And if waterboarded for my true feelings, I'm not sure even I'd cop to it - it just strikes me as odd that SCC is the outlier on this.  But if you assume the Health Officer believes this is a necessary step, then I'm not sure why she would abandon it now (as cardcrimson notes).  My hope is that Bob is correct.  And if the whack conspiracy theory is accurate, then the regulations will be lifted!!

[teejers1]

Teejers1 you have changed my thinking about SCC extending the sports ban.  I haven't been reading the Covid board comments so I don't know the SCC timeline.   When does the existing ban end? 

Uh oh.  Paloalto, the group buying into my "conspiracy theory" about SCC health regulators' targeting 'Niners (and including colleges for cover) has exactly zero adherents, afaik!  And if waterboarded for my true feelings, I'm not sure even I'd cop to it - it just strikes me as odd that SCC is the outlier on this.  But if you assume the Health Officer believes this is a necessary step, then I'm not sure why she would abandon it now (as cardcrimson notes).  My hope is that Bob is correct.  And if the whack conspiracy theory is accurate, then the regulations will be lifted!!

[Farm93]

Teejers1 you have changed my thinking about SCC extending the sports ban.  I haven't been reading the Covid board comments so I don't know the SCC timeline.   When does the existing ban end? 

Uh oh.  Paloalto, the group buying into my "conspiracy theory" about SCC health regulators' targeting 'Niners (and including colleges for cover) has exactly zero adherents, afaik!  And if waterboarded for my true feelings, I'm not sure even I'd cop to it - it just strikes me as odd that SCC is the outlier on this.  But if you assume the Health Officer believes this is a necessary step, then I'm not sure why she would abandon it now (as cardcrimson notes).  My hope is that Bob is correct.  And if the whack conspiracy theory is accurate, then the regulations will be lifted!!

To answer the question...the existing ban might end in early February (best case).   Hard to imagine anything in any CA county will get less restrictive in early January based on case levels now and the almost certainty that Christmas will bring us a post-Christmas COVID-19 surge.

The Stanford Athletics will need to be like ABC's Bachelorette and move to a new locale for the season.   My favorite has been Las Vegas, NV.

I am not sure the AD can justify the expense related to relocating all of the sports and students to NV, but seems hard to imagine all of Stanford's sports outside of football will be able to train and hold competitions in SCC (or potentially anywhere in CA) in January.

[Farm93]

Teejers1 you have changed my thinking about SCC extending the sports ban.  I haven't been reading the Covid board comments so I don't know the SCC timeline.   When does the existing ban end? 

Uh oh.  Paloalto, the group buying into my "conspiracy theory" about SCC health regulators' targeting 'Niners (and including colleges for cover) has exactly zero adherents, afaik!  And if waterboarded for my true feelings, I'm not sure even I'd cop to it - it just strikes me as odd that SCC is the outlier on this.  But if you assume the Health Officer believes this is a necessary step, then I'm not sure why she would abandon it now (as cardcrimson notes).  My hope is that Bob is correct.  And if the whack conspiracy theory is accurate, then the regulations will be lifted!!

To answer the question...the existing ban might end in early February (best case).   Hard to imagine anything in any CA county will get less restrictive in early January based on case levels now and the almost certainty that Christmas will bring us a post-Christmas COVID-19 surge.

The Stanford Athletics will need to be like ABC's Bachelorette and move to a new locale for the season.   My favorite has been Las Vegas, NV.

I am not sure the AD can justify the expense related to relocating all of the sports and students to NV, but seems hard to imagine all of Stanford's sports outside of football will be able to train and hold competitions in SCC (or potentially anywhere in CA) in January.

[BobK]

Farm we are talking 15 or so sports who should be practicing next week.
UNLV isn’t playing right now men or women. That’s not a great option
We are no longer talking just football and basketball

Plus we are talking Santa Clara and SJS.

Having the WBB team stay walking distance from Stanford was beyond stupid of the county.

[BobK]

Farm we are talking 15 or so sports who should be practicing next week.
UNLV isn’t playing right now men or women. That’s not a great option
We are no longer talking just football and basketball

Plus we are talking Santa Clara and SJS.

Having the WBB team stay walking distance from Stanford was beyond stupid of the county.

[M T]

Rather than bitching about rules to keep you safe ("Why do I have to sit in a car seat?"), why not try to figure out what is safe or not, and how to play even more safely than normal.  Then present a plan to those who have the responsibility for the rules.

There are four aspects of college sports that are an issue for the spread of COVID:
1)   Spectators.   I think we've recognized that spectators are mostly not a required aspect of sports.
2)   Travel.  As we've realized, travel is a risky aspect of life in this COVID year.  It isn't the miles traveled or even the destination, it is the interactions among a larger set of individuals.
3)   Intra-team spread.  SCC has specified rules essentially to put teams into bubbles (and households within those bubbles).
4)   Inter-team spread.  This is where "contact sports" are risky.  Inter-team spread in, say, rowing is unlikely.

The SCC ban is on contact sports.  When I look at GoStanford.com,
I believe these sports are contact sports:
Men: basketball, football, soccer, water polo, wrestling
Women: basketball, field hockey, lacrosse, soccer, water polo

I believe these sports involve close proximity but could be generously classified as non-contact:
Men: volleyball
Women: beach volleyball, volleyball

I believe these sports are (primarily) NOT contact sports:
Men:  baseball, cross country, fencing, golf, gymnastics, rowing, sailing, swimming & diving, tennis, track & field,
Women: cross country, fencing, golf, gymnastics, rowing, rowing ltw, sailing, softball, swimming & diving, synchronized swimming, tennis, track & field

Some of those will involve occasional contact.  
Cross country & track include events that usually involve < 6' distance.  One wouldn't want to do those events in a mask.  Possibly, using staggered starts, or time trials, these events could be practiced and competed in a safe manner.  Maybe it isn't the same to have two runners racing to the end of their mile half a track apart, but they would still be running the same mile.

I could see the volleyball sports played with a mask, if that would allow them to be played.
The boating sports involve occasional close contact with teammates, but no contact with opponents.  I could see those being agreed to, hopefully without masks during competition.

I could imagine soccer, field hockey, and lacrosse could be played with a mask, if that allowed them to be played.  It wouldn't be quite the same, but it would be better than not playing.

Water polo and wrestling competitions (or scrimmages) are definitely hazardous sports for spreading COVID.  I see no hope for those sports to be played until COVID is nearly non-existent.

Baseball and softball might warrant special rules for immediate ejection for getting in someone's face, to discourage the rare interactions that would promote the spread.


I hope that Stanford & SJSU are looking at what can be considered safe and what is not safe, and are working to present the county with a plan that removes the COVID hazards in the sports that can be played.

[M T]

Rather than bitching about rules to keep you safe ("Why do I have to sit in a car seat?"), why not try to figure out what is safe or not, and how to play even more safely than normal.  Then present a plan to those who have the responsibility for the rules.

There are four aspects of college sports that are an issue for the spread of COVID:
1)   Spectators.   I think we've recognized that spectators are mostly not a required aspect of sports.
2)   Travel.  As we've realized, travel is a risky aspect of life in this COVID year.  It isn't the miles traveled or even the destination, it is the interactions among a larger set of individuals.
3)   Intra-team spread.  SCC has specified rules essentially to put teams into bubbles (and households within those bubbles).
4)   Inter-team spread.  This is where "contact sports" are risky.  Inter-team spread in, say, rowing is unlikely.

The SCC ban is on contact sports.  When I look at GoStanford.com,
I believe these sports are contact sports:
Men: basketball, football, soccer, water polo, wrestling
Women: basketball, field hockey, lacrosse, soccer, water polo

I believe these sports involve close proximity but could be generously classified as non-contact:
Men: volleyball
Women: beach volleyball, volleyball

I believe these sports are (primarily) NOT contact sports:
Men:  baseball, cross country, fencing, golf, gymnastics, rowing, sailing, swimming & diving, tennis, track & field,
Women: cross country, fencing, golf, gymnastics, rowing, rowing ltw, sailing, softball, swimming & diving, synchronized swimming, tennis, track & field

Some of those will involve occasional contact.  
Cross country & track include events that usually involve < 6' distance.  One wouldn't want to do those events in a mask.  Possibly, using staggered starts, or time trials, these events could be practiced and competed in a safe manner.  Maybe it isn't the same to have two runners racing to the end of their mile half a track apart, but they would still be running the same mile.

I could see the volleyball sports played with a mask, if that would allow them to be played.
The boating sports involve occasional close contact with teammates, but no contact with opponents.  I could see those being agreed to, hopefully without masks during competition.

I could imagine soccer, field hockey, and lacrosse could be played with a mask, if that allowed them to be played.  It wouldn't be quite the same, but it would be better than not playing.

Water polo and wrestling competitions (or scrimmages) are definitely hazardous sports for spreading COVID.  I see no hope for those sports to be played until COVID is nearly non-existent.

Baseball and softball might warrant special rules for immediate ejection for getting in someone's face, to discourage the rare interactions that would promote the spread.


I hope that Stanford & SJSU are looking at what can be considered safe and what is not safe, and are working to present the county with a plan that removes the COVID hazards in the sports that can be played.

[cardcrimson]

Rather than bitching about rules to keep you safe ("Why do I have to sit in a car seat?"), why not try to figure out what is safe or not, and how to play even more safely than normal.  Then present a plan to those who have the responsibility for the rules.

There are four aspects of college sports that are an issue for the spread of COVID:
1)   Spectators.   I think we've recognized that spectators are mostly not a required aspect of sports.
2)   Travel.  As we've realized, travel is a risky aspect of life in this COVID year.  It isn't the miles traveled or even the destination, it is the interactions among a larger set of individuals.
3)   Intra-team spread.  SCC has specified rules essentially to put teams into bubbles (and households within those bubbles).
4)   Inter-team spread.  This is where "contact sports" are risky.  Inter-team spread in, say, rowing is unlikely.

The SCC ban is on contact sports.  When I look at GoStanford.com,
I believe these sports are contact sports:
Men: basketball, football, soccer, water polo, wrestling
Women: basketball, field hockey, lacrosse, soccer, water polo

I believe these sports involve close proximity but could be generously classified as non-contact:
Men: volleyball
Women: beach volleyball, volleyball

I believe these sports are (primarily) NOT contact sports:
Men:  baseball, cross country, fencing, golf, gymnastics, rowing, sailing, swimming & diving, tennis, track & field,
Women: cross country, fencing, golf, gymnastics, rowing, rowing ltw, sailing, softball, swimming & diving, synchronized swimming, tennis, track & field

Some of those will involve occasional contact.  
Cross country & track include events that usually involve < 6' distance.  One wouldn't want to do those events in a mask.  Possibly, using staggered starts, or time trials, these events could be practiced and competed in a safe manner.  Maybe it isn't the same to have two runners racing to the end of their mile half a track apart, but they would still be running the same mile.

I could see the volleyball sports played with a mask, if that would allow them to be played.
The boating sports involve occasional close contact with teammates, but no contact with opponents.  I could see those being agreed to, hopefully without masks during competition.

I could imagine soccer, field hockey, and lacrosse could be played with a mask, if that allowed them to be played.  It wouldn't be quite the same, but it would be better than not playing.

Water polo and wrestling competitions (or scrimmages) are definitely hazardous sports for spreading COVID.  I see no hope for those sports to be played until COVID is nearly non-existent.

Baseball and softball might warrant special rules for immediate ejection for getting in someone's face, to discourage the rare interactions that would promote the spread.


I hope that Stanford & SJSU are looking at what can be considered safe and what is not safe, and are working to present the county with a plan that removes the COVID hazards in the sports that can be played.

Well, there was that Italian University study that showed water polo tied with beach volleyball as the safest team sports regarding Covid. Practices, scrimmages and tournaments in Europe and even in the US have been carried out safely, and at all levels of play, from professionals to 10Us. The protocols are there already. What I bitch about, is the government not allowing people to follow them.

[cardcrimson]

Rather than bitching about rules to keep you safe ("Why do I have to sit in a car seat?"), why not try to figure out what is safe or not, and how to play even more safely than normal.  Then present a plan to those who have the responsibility for the rules.

There are four aspects of college sports that are an issue for the spread of COVID:
1)   Spectators.   I think we've recognized that spectators are mostly not a required aspect of sports.
2)   Travel.  As we've realized, travel is a risky aspect of life in this COVID year.  It isn't the miles traveled or even the destination, it is the interactions among a larger set of individuals.
3)   Intra-team spread.  SCC has specified rules essentially to put teams into bubbles (and households within those bubbles).
4)   Inter-team spread.  This is where "contact sports" are risky.  Inter-team spread in, say, rowing is unlikely.

The SCC ban is on contact sports.  When I look at GoStanford.com,
I believe these sports are contact sports:
Men: basketball, football, soccer, water polo, wrestling
Women: basketball, field hockey, lacrosse, soccer, water polo

I believe these sports involve close proximity but could be generously classified as non-contact:
Men: volleyball
Women: beach volleyball, volleyball

I believe these sports are (primarily) NOT contact sports:
Men:  baseball, cross country, fencing, golf, gymnastics, rowing, sailing, swimming & diving, tennis, track & field,
Women: cross country, fencing, golf, gymnastics, rowing, rowing ltw, sailing, softball, swimming & diving, synchronized swimming, tennis, track & field

Some of those will involve occasional contact.  
Cross country & track include events that usually involve < 6' distance.  One wouldn't want to do those events in a mask.  Possibly, using staggered starts, or time trials, these events could be practiced and competed in a safe manner.  Maybe it isn't the same to have two runners racing to the end of their mile half a track apart, but they would still be running the same mile.

I could see the volleyball sports played with a mask, if that would allow them to be played.
The boating sports involve occasional close contact with teammates, but no contact with opponents.  I could see those being agreed to, hopefully without masks during competition.

I could imagine soccer, field hockey, and lacrosse could be played with a mask, if that allowed them to be played.  It wouldn't be quite the same, but it would be better than not playing.

Water polo and wrestling competitions (or scrimmages) are definitely hazardous sports for spreading COVID.  I see no hope for those sports to be played until COVID is nearly non-existent.

Baseball and softball might warrant special rules for immediate ejection for getting in someone's face, to discourage the rare interactions that would promote the spread.


I hope that Stanford & SJSU are looking at what can be considered safe and what is not safe, and are working to present the county with a plan that removes the COVID hazards in the sports that can be played.

Well, there was that Italian University study that showed water polo tied with beach volleyball as the safest team sports regarding Covid. Practices, scrimmages and tournaments in Europe and even in the US have been carried out safely, and at all levels of play, from professionals to 10Us. The protocols are there already. What I bitch about, is the government not allowing people to follow them.

[BobK]

First schedule I’ve seen

https://twitter.com/badgervb/status/1344...92064?s=21

[BobK]

First schedule I’ve seen

https://twitter.com/badgervb/status/1344...92064?s=21

[teejers1]

Rather than bitching about rules to keep you safe ("Why do I have to sit in a car seat?"), why not try to figure out what is safe or not, and how to play even more safely than normal.  Then present a plan to those who have the responsibility for the rules.

So that's how it works?

County Health Officer issues directive and then it's up to others to come up with reasons why the directive is too broadly drawn?  Or misguided?
Some might think the County Health Officer might have thought about that before issuing directives, especially ones that are clear outliers.  "We're all in this together," right?

But putting aside that procedural question, one answer might be:  "because that kind of dialogue worked so well for the 49ers?"  (A pro team that tested athletes regularly and had pretty strict protocols in place).  Some might think if the 'Niners - with all their resources and already implemented safety measures - could not get approval from the County Health Officer, that it might be one of those "what's the point?" asks.

It just sucks for these kids (and the fans who were really looking forward to a FF run).

[teejers1]

Rather than bitching about rules to keep you safe ("Why do I have to sit in a car seat?"), why not try to figure out what is safe or not, and how to play even more safely than normal.  Then present a plan to those who have the responsibility for the rules.

So that's how it works?

County Health Officer issues directive and then it's up to others to come up with reasons why the directive is too broadly drawn?  Or misguided?
Some might think the County Health Officer might have thought about that before issuing directives, especially ones that are clear outliers.  "We're all in this together," right?

But putting aside that procedural question, one answer might be:  "because that kind of dialogue worked so well for the 49ers?"  (A pro team that tested athletes regularly and had pretty strict protocols in place).  Some might think if the 'Niners - with all their resources and already implemented safety measures - could not get approval from the County Health Officer, that it might be one of those "what's the point?" asks.

It just sucks for these kids (and the fans who were really looking forward to a FF run).

[BobK]

Well the team is arriving some here locally not Stanford some coming. Now where do they practice and play no idea

[BobK]

Well the team is arriving some here locally not Stanford some coming. Now where do they practice and play no idea

[Softball Fan]

Thanks for the update.  When you find out where the team will practice and play home games I would be interested to know.

https://twitter.com/sportsiren/status/13...00/photo/1

2021 recruits Miner and Francis should have been playing in an Under Amour All-American game but in the Covid era all we get is a photograph.

[Softball Fan]

Thanks for the update.  When you find out where the team will practice and play home games I would be interested to know.

https://twitter.com/sportsiren/status/13...00/photo/1

2021 recruits Miner and Francis should have been playing in an Under Amour All-American game but in the Covid era all we get is a photograph.

[teejers1]

Thanks for the update.  When you find out where the team will practice and play home games I would be interested to know.

Just north of Stanford, in Menlo Park (SMC), there is an Arrillaga recreational facility that could easily host practices and games.  Wonder if Stanford is looking into that at all.  [Plus, it's right directionally in terms of Covid safety - Stanford hospital has very few "indigenous" Covid cases, with the vast majority of them being transfers from south county (per a doctor there on a recent family visit)].

[teejers1]

Thanks for the update.  When you find out where the team will practice and play home games I would be interested to know.

Just north of Stanford, in Menlo Park (SMC), there is an Arrillaga recreational facility that could easily host practices and games.  Wonder if Stanford is looking into that at all.  [Plus, it's right directionally in terms of Covid safety - Stanford hospital has very few "indigenous" Covid cases, with the vast majority of them being transfers from south county (per a doctor there on a recent family visit)].

[Farm93]

Thanks for the update.  When you find out where the team will practice and play home games I would be interested to know.

Just north of Stanford, in Menlo Park (SMC), there is an Arrillaga recreational facility that could easily host practices and games.  Wonder if Stanford is looking into that at all.  [Plus, it's right directionally in terms of Covid safety - Stanford hospital has very few "indigenous" Covid cases, with the vast majority of them being transfers from south county (per a doctor there on a recent family visit)].

Forget just north of Stanford.  Stanford itself has thousands of acres in San Mateo county.   If San Mateo county was a viable solution I have to believe the school would have started down that path.  My assumption has always been that San Mateo county could easily update its mandates if SCC schools and pro teams used SMC as an option, and may have even told Stanford that already. 

The bigger problem for Stanford will be the games.   The competitors will have travelled from outside of 150 miles.

Quarantine Requirements
Except as otherwise provided in this Directive, all persons traveling into Santa Clara County, whether by air, car, train, or any other means, directly or indirectly from a point of origin greater than 150 miles from the County’s borders must quarantine for at least 10 days after arrival.

So whether it is swimming, wrestling, basketball or baseball those individuals coming into the area for a competition should quarantine for a period of time once in SCC before they are around others.  That's a problem.

That's why I am hoping Stanford is looking for a nice set of facilities outside of CA like a set of casinos with arenas for sporting events, or a place like Colorado Springs with training facilities for athletes.   Another D1 school would not be a good option as every other D1 school will be trying to squeeze fall, winter and spring practices and events into the rest of the 2020-2021 academic year.

The mandate in SCC exists.  While some may express frustration that this is unfair or insufficiently founded, it is the standing mandate in the area.   The Stanford AD should find a way to field viable Pac-12 teams and host viable Pac-12 contests.

Political influence sounds appealing but if the NFL and the 49ers couldn't make it happen for a couple of contests a month, I just can't see how Stanford gets exceptions for dozens of contests a week.

[Farm93]

Thanks for the update.  When you find out where the team will practice and play home games I would be interested to know.

Just north of Stanford, in Menlo Park (SMC), there is an Arrillaga recreational facility that could easily host practices and games.  Wonder if Stanford is looking into that at all.  [Plus, it's right directionally in terms of Covid safety - Stanford hospital has very few "indigenous" Covid cases, with the vast majority of them being transfers from south county (per a doctor there on a recent family visit)].

Forget just north of Stanford.  Stanford itself has thousands of acres in San Mateo county.   If San Mateo county was a viable solution I have to believe the school would have started down that path.  My assumption has always been that San Mateo county could easily update its mandates if SCC schools and pro teams used SMC as an option, and may have even told Stanford that already. 

The bigger problem for Stanford will be the games.   The competitors will have travelled from outside of 150 miles.

Quarantine Requirements
Except as otherwise provided in this Directive, all persons traveling into Santa Clara County, whether by air, car, train, or any other means, directly or indirectly from a point of origin greater than 150 miles from the County’s borders must quarantine for at least 10 days after arrival.

So whether it is swimming, wrestling, basketball or baseball those individuals coming into the area for a competition should quarantine for a period of time once in SCC before they are around others.  That's a problem.

That's why I am hoping Stanford is looking for a nice set of facilities outside of CA like a set of casinos with arenas for sporting events, or a place like Colorado Springs with training facilities for athletes.   Another D1 school would not be a good option as every other D1 school will be trying to squeeze fall, winter and spring practices and events into the rest of the 2020-2021 academic year.

The mandate in SCC exists.  While some may express frustration that this is unfair or insufficiently founded, it is the standing mandate in the area.   The Stanford AD should find a way to field viable Pac-12 teams and host viable Pac-12 contests.

Political influence sounds appealing but if the NFL and the 49ers couldn't make it happen for a couple of contests a month, I just can't see how Stanford gets exceptions for dozens of contests a week.

[teejers1]

Thanks for the update.  When you find out where the team will practice and play home games I would be interested to know.

Just north of Stanford, in Menlo Park (SMC), there is an Arrillaga recreational facility that could easily host practices and games.  Wonder if Stanford is looking into that at all.  [Plus, it's right directionally in terms of Covid safety - Stanford hospital has very few "indigenous" Covid cases, with the vast majority of them being transfers from south county (per a doctor there on a recent family visit)].

Forget just north of Stanford.  Stanford itself has thousands of acres in San Mateo county.   If San Mateo county was a viable solution I have to believe the school would have started down that path.  My assumption has always been that San Mateo county could easily update its mandates if SCC schools and pro teams used SMC as an option, and may have even told Stanford that already. 

The bigger problem for Stanford will be the games.   The competitors will have travelled from outside of 150 miles.

Quarantine Requirements
Except as otherwise provided in this Directive, all persons traveling into Santa Clara County, whether by air, car, train, or any other means, directly or indirectly from a point of origin greater than 150 miles from the County’s borders must quarantine for at least 10 days after arrival.

So whether it is swimming, wrestling, basketball or baseball those individuals coming into the area for a competition should quarantine for a period of time once in SCC before they are around others.  That's a problem.

That's why I am hoping Stanford is looking for a nice set of facilities outside of CA like a set of casinos with arenas for sporting events, or a place like Colorado Springs with training facilities for athletes.   Another D1 school would not be a good option as every other D1 school will be trying to squeeze fall, winter and spring practices and events into the rest of the 2020-2021 academic year.

The mandate in SCC exists.  While some may express frustration that this is unfair or insufficiently founded, it is the standing mandate in the area.   The Stanford AD should find a way to field viable Pac-12 teams and host viable Pac-12 contests.

Political influence sounds appealing but if the NFL and the 49ers couldn't make it happen for a couple of contests a month, I just can't see how Stanford gets exceptions for dozens of contests a week.

I'm not assuming any "home" games at all.  But if there were some games in Santa Cruz or SMC at a facility,  I don't see how SCC's outlier restriction comes into play.  For one thing, the competitors can enter through SFO and come south as far as needed (but stay out of SCC), especially if games in SMC site.  For another, how is SCC's restriction going to be enforced against teams rolling in/out of the county?  Heck, the county didn't even enforce its "rules" to home teams like SJSU and Stanford, when players returned home and then headed out for competition before waiting out the entire quarantine period.

I suspect all of this will become moot at some point down the line . . . unfortunately.  I just hope there still is a way to have NCAA hoops this year (and I still think there will be, even if belated).

[teejers1]

Thanks for the update.  When you find out where the team will practice and play home games I would be interested to know.

Just north of Stanford, in Menlo Park (SMC), there is an Arrillaga recreational facility that could easily host practices and games.  Wonder if Stanford is looking into that at all.  [Plus, it's right directionally in terms of Covid safety - Stanford hospital has very few "indigenous" Covid cases, with the vast majority of them being transfers from south county (per a doctor there on a recent family visit)].

Forget just north of Stanford.  Stanford itself has thousands of acres in San Mateo county.   If San Mateo county was a viable solution I have to believe the school would have started down that path.  My assumption has always been that San Mateo county could easily update its mandates if SCC schools and pro teams used SMC as an option, and may have even told Stanford that already. 

The bigger problem for Stanford will be the games.   The competitors will have travelled from outside of 150 miles.

Quarantine Requirements
Except as otherwise provided in this Directive, all persons traveling into Santa Clara County, whether by air, car, train, or any other means, directly or indirectly from a point of origin greater than 150 miles from the County’s borders must quarantine for at least 10 days after arrival.

So whether it is swimming, wrestling, basketball or baseball those individuals coming into the area for a competition should quarantine for a period of time once in SCC before they are around others.  That's a problem.

That's why I am hoping Stanford is looking for a nice set of facilities outside of CA like a set of casinos with arenas for sporting events, or a place like Colorado Springs with training facilities for athletes.   Another D1 school would not be a good option as every other D1 school will be trying to squeeze fall, winter and spring practices and events into the rest of the 2020-2021 academic year.

The mandate in SCC exists.  While some may express frustration that this is unfair or insufficiently founded, it is the standing mandate in the area.   The Stanford AD should find a way to field viable Pac-12 teams and host viable Pac-12 contests.

Political influence sounds appealing but if the NFL and the 49ers couldn't make it happen for a couple of contests a month, I just can't see how Stanford gets exceptions for dozens of contests a week.

I'm not assuming any "home" games at all.  But if there were some games in Santa Cruz or SMC at a facility,  I don't see how SCC's outlier restriction comes into play.  For one thing, the competitors can enter through SFO and come south as far as needed (but stay out of SCC), especially if games in SMC site.  For another, how is SCC's restriction going to be enforced against teams rolling in/out of the county?  Heck, the county didn't even enforce its "rules" to home teams like SJSU and Stanford, when players returned home and then headed out for competition before waiting out the entire quarantine period.

I suspect all of this will become moot at some point down the line . . . unfortunately.  I just hope there still is a way to have NCAA hoops this year (and I still think there will be, even if belated).

[M T]

SCC travel quarantine rules apply only if one stays overnight.  They do not apply for someone that transits through Santa Clara County.
A similar order applies to the L.A. schools, a quarantine exists there too (and San Francisco).
(The announcers at one recent PAC-12 WBB game indicated the visitors flew in during the morning and were to fly out the day of the game, but I forgot which school that was.)

HOWEVER, the California order for out-of-state reservations at hotels apply to each region that has < 15% available beds within the past 3 weeks.   That includes virtually all of California.  (Note that it does not technically apply to residents of L.A.County that come to San Mateo County.

[M T]

SCC travel quarantine rules apply only if one stays overnight.  They do not apply for someone that transits through Santa Clara County.
A similar order applies to the L.A. schools, a quarantine exists there too (and San Francisco).
(The announcers at one recent PAC-12 WBB game indicated the visitors flew in during the morning and were to fly out the day of the game, but I forgot which school that was.)

HOWEVER, the California order for out-of-state reservations at hotels apply to each region that has < 15% available beds within the past 3 weeks.   That includes virtually all of California.  (Note that it does not technically apply to residents of L.A.County that come to San Mateo County.

[BobK]

Basketball teams are free to come and go in both LA and SF counties

[BobK]

Basketball teams are free to come and go in both LA and SF counties

[Softball Fan]

https://www.avca.org/polls/di-women/1-5-2021.html

Stanford is #3 with 3 first place votes in the pre-season AVCA poll.  On another board there was an overwhelming consensus that UCLA would win the PAC-12.  UCLA is ranked #22.

[Softball Fan]

https://www.avca.org/polls/di-women/1-5-2021.html

Stanford is #3 with 3 first place votes in the pre-season AVCA poll.  On another board there was an overwhelming consensus that UCLA would win the PAC-12.  UCLA is ranked #22.

[CompSci87]

Cool LA Times article about "girl dads" with a lot of Stanford athletes mentioned. Credit to a volleytalk poster for the link.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/highschoo...california

[CompSci87]

Cool LA Times article about "girl dads" with a lot of Stanford athletes mentioned. Credit to a volleytalk poster for the link.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/highschoo...california

[Farm93]

SCC travel quarantine rules apply only if one stays overnight.  They do not apply for someone that transits through Santa Clara County.
A similar order applies to the L.A. schools, a quarantine exists there too (and San Francisco).
(The announcers at one recent PAC-12 WBB game indicated the visitors flew in during the morning and were to fly out the day of the game, but I forgot which school that was.)

HOWEVER, the California order for out-of-state reservations at hotels apply to each region that has < 15% available beds within the past 3 weeks.   That includes virtually all of California.  (Note that it does not technically apply to residents of L.A.County that come to San Mateo County.

MT -
Yes the current challenges are with SCC.   
However, the CA reality is that LA county is really CA's biggest problem.  In ~14 days there will be a POTUS46 that will give far greater cover to Governors to do more to actively fight COVID-19 spread.   So, in my mind, in as few as 14 days the SCC situation could be the model for the state, or at least the model for college teams.  (The LA Lakers may have a bit more political power than the 49ers.)

I have seen BC's concern about holding any of these contests.    A real concern IMO.  However, if the NCAA is allowing schools to hold events then I believe the Stanford AD will try to find a way.   Santa Cruz offers the best logistics option for basketball, given the current mandates.   However, I am not sure Santa Cruz will work as well for some other sports and may not work at all if Gov Newsom has a bit more Federal backing at the end of the month.

My other set of assumptions is that visiting teams will not do as much as some here may hope to try to compete on the Stanford campus.  I don't think all visitors will accept wearing masks during competitions only in SCC, or flying into SCC for just a few hours of competition and not get the normal prior evening walkthroughs, etc.  On the drive through I would fear the other problem is that a sporting contest is clearly not the intended spirit of the driving through concept, so I would anticipate health officials would eliminate that loophole if required.

Santa Cruz is a great plan B, but I hope the Stanford AD is looking for an out of state plan C. 

Sure hope February is better than January, but based on vaccine roll out pace it is becoming hard to imagine that right now.  Hopefully March, April, May and June will be better.

[Farm93]

SCC travel quarantine rules apply only if one stays overnight.  They do not apply for someone that transits through Santa Clara County.
A similar order applies to the L.A. schools, a quarantine exists there too (and San Francisco).
(The announcers at one recent PAC-12 WBB game indicated the visitors flew in during the morning and were to fly out the day of the game, but I forgot which school that was.)

HOWEVER, the California order for out-of-state reservations at hotels apply to each region that has < 15% available beds within the past 3 weeks.   That includes virtually all of California.  (Note that it does not technically apply to residents of L.A.County that come to San Mateo County.

MT -
Yes the current challenges are with SCC.   
However, the CA reality is that LA county is really CA's biggest problem.  In ~14 days there will be a POTUS46 that will give far greater cover to Governors to do more to actively fight COVID-19 spread.   So, in my mind, in as few as 14 days the SCC situation could be the model for the state, or at least the model for college teams.  (The LA Lakers may have a bit more political power than the 49ers.)

I have seen BC's concern about holding any of these contests.    A real concern IMO.  However, if the NCAA is allowing schools to hold events then I believe the Stanford AD will try to find a way.   Santa Cruz offers the best logistics option for basketball, given the current mandates.   However, I am not sure Santa Cruz will work as well for some other sports and may not work at all if Gov Newsom has a bit more Federal backing at the end of the month.

My other set of assumptions is that visiting teams will not do as much as some here may hope to try to compete on the Stanford campus.  I don't think all visitors will accept wearing masks during competitions only in SCC, or flying into SCC for just a few hours of competition and not get the normal prior evening walkthroughs, etc.  On the drive through I would fear the other problem is that a sporting contest is clearly not the intended spirit of the driving through concept, so I would anticipate health officials would eliminate that loophole if required.

Santa Cruz is a great plan B, but I hope the Stanford AD is looking for an out of state plan C. 

Sure hope February is better than January, but based on vaccine roll out pace it is becoming hard to imagine that right now.  Hopefully March, April, May and June will be better.

[JJJ]

Cool LA Times article about "girl dads" with a lot of Stanford athletes mentioned. Credit to a volleytalk poster for the link.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/highschoo...california

Cool article indeed. Thanks for sharing!

[JJJ]

Cool LA Times article about "girl dads" with a lot of Stanford athletes mentioned. Credit to a volleytalk poster for the link.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/highschoo...california

Cool article indeed. Thanks for sharing!

[teejers1]

SCC travel quarantine rules apply only if one stays overnight.  They do not apply for someone that transits through Santa Clara County.
A similar order applies to the L.A. schools, a quarantine exists there too (and San Francisco).
(The announcers at one recent PAC-12 WBB game indicated the visitors flew in during the morning and were to fly out the day of the game, but I forgot which school that was.)

HOWEVER, the California order for out-of-state reservations at hotels apply to each region that has < 15% available beds within the past 3 weeks.   That includes virtually all of California.  (Note that it does not technically apply to residents of L.A.County that come to San Mateo County.

MT -
Yes the current challenges are with SCC.   
However, the CA reality is that LA county is really CA's biggest problem.  In ~14 days there will be a POTUS46 that will give far greater cover to Governors to do more to actively fight COVID-19 spread.   So, in my mind, in as few as 14 days the SCC situation could be the model for the state, or at least the model for college teams.  (The LA Lakers may have a bit more political power than the 49ers.)

I have seen BC's concern about holding any of these contests.    A real concern IMO.  However, if the NCAA is allowing schools to hold events then I believe the Stanford AD will try to find a way.   Santa Cruz offers the best logistics option for basketball, given the current mandates.   However, I am not sure Santa Cruz will work as well for some other sports and may not work at all if Gov Newsom has a bit more Federal backing at the end of the month.

My other set of assumptions is that visiting teams will not do as much as some here may hope to try to compete on the Stanford campus.  I don't think all visitors will accept wearing masks during competitions only in SCC, or flying into SCC for just a few hours of competition and not get the normal prior evening walkthroughs, etc.  On the drive through I would fear the other problem is that a sporting contest is clearly not the intended spirit of the driving through concept, so I would anticipate health officials would eliminate that loophole if required.

Santa Cruz is a great plan B, but I hope the Stanford AD is looking for an out of state plan C. 

Sure hope February is better than January, but based on vaccine roll out pace it is becoming hard to imagine that right now.  Hopefully March, April, May and June will be better.

Newsom doing stuff (or not doing stuff) vis a vis sports teams because of goings-on in DC?  That's hard to take seriously, really.
Newsom is worried about only two things - as is true for virtually all politicians - himself and getting re-elected.  The latter really isn't an issue in CA, unless he goes sideways with his own party.  I just don't see taking on sports activities - pro and college - as something remotely high on Newsom's list.  (If you think that is necessary as part of Newsom's greater ambitions premised on his "best in class" handling of the virus in his state . . . well, that cratered with LA County, in particular, getting out of control.  And is there any evidence of spread from the sporting events themselves?  I mean, I assume there is some . . . but not anything remarkable or noteworthy - indeed, given all the testing and safety protocols, it's possible that these activities are limiting spread).

BTW, there is also a Plan D - SCC joins all the other counties in CA when it comes to pro and college sports . . .

[teejers1]

SCC travel quarantine rules apply only if one stays overnight.  They do not apply for someone that transits through Santa Clara County.
A similar order applies to the L.A. schools, a quarantine exists there too (and San Francisco).
(The announcers at one recent PAC-12 WBB game indicated the visitors flew in during the morning and were to fly out the day of the game, but I forgot which school that was.)

HOWEVER, the California order for out-of-state reservations at hotels apply to each region that has < 15% available beds within the past 3 weeks.   That includes virtually all of California.  (Note that it does not technically apply to residents of L.A.County that come to San Mateo County.

MT -
Yes the current challenges are with SCC.   
However, the CA reality is that LA county is really CA's biggest problem.  In ~14 days there will be a POTUS46 that will give far greater cover to Governors to do more to actively fight COVID-19 spread.   So, in my mind, in as few as 14 days the SCC situation could be the model for the state, or at least the model for college teams.  (The LA Lakers may have a bit more political power than the 49ers.)

I have seen BC's concern about holding any of these contests.    A real concern IMO.  However, if the NCAA is allowing schools to hold events then I believe the Stanford AD will try to find a way.   Santa Cruz offers the best logistics option for basketball, given the current mandates.   However, I am not sure Santa Cruz will work as well for some other sports and may not work at all if Gov Newsom has a bit more Federal backing at the end of the month.

My other set of assumptions is that visiting teams will not do as much as some here may hope to try to compete on the Stanford campus.  I don't think all visitors will accept wearing masks during competitions only in SCC, or flying into SCC for just a few hours of competition and not get the normal prior evening walkthroughs, etc.  On the drive through I would fear the other problem is that a sporting contest is clearly not the intended spirit of the driving through concept, so I would anticipate health officials would eliminate that loophole if required.

Santa Cruz is a great plan B, but I hope the Stanford AD is looking for an out of state plan C. 

Sure hope February is better than January, but based on vaccine roll out pace it is becoming hard to imagine that right now.  Hopefully March, April, May and June will be better.

Newsom doing stuff (or not doing stuff) vis a vis sports teams because of goings-on in DC?  That's hard to take seriously, really.
Newsom is worried about only two things - as is true for virtually all politicians - himself and getting re-elected.  The latter really isn't an issue in CA, unless he goes sideways with his own party.  I just don't see taking on sports activities - pro and college - as something remotely high on Newsom's list.  (If you think that is necessary as part of Newsom's greater ambitions premised on his "best in class" handling of the virus in his state . . . well, that cratered with LA County, in particular, getting out of control.  And is there any evidence of spread from the sporting events themselves?  I mean, I assume there is some . . . but not anything remarkable or noteworthy - indeed, given all the testing and safety protocols, it's possible that these activities are limiting spread).

BTW, there is also a Plan D - SCC joins all the other counties in CA when it comes to pro and college sports . . .

[BostonCard]

Yeah, I put a lot of responsibility on the President, but this one is on the shoulders of Gavin Newsome.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yeah, I put a lot of responsibility on the President, but this one is on the shoulders of Gavin Newsome.

BC