[JJJ]

The case count for Sunday was a new record 2205, so in retrospect, it was probably just as well that the game was cancelled.

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2021/12/26...continues/

[JJJ]

The case count for Sunday was a new record 2205, so in retrospect, it was probably just as well that the game was cancelled.

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2021/12/26...continues/

[MV72018]

This is going to continue again and again and again until we treat it like we did WWII.

Good call, Phogge!

[MV72018]

This is going to continue again and again and again until we treat it like we did WWII.

Good call, Phogge!

[BillBradley]

This is why I'm hesitant to book any trips to away games. I was considering going to to LA games for the women in February but am holding off until the last minute to book a hotel. It'll probably cost more money for late bookings but it's the only option with Covid, especially with the LA schools.

Completely agree.   My guess is flying to Hawaii and/or interacting with enough people in the transportation and hospitality industries made this inevitable.  Not a big deal for a regular season basketball game, but if I had a team in the CFP semis I would have them embracing the full time use of N95 masks and absolutely no interaction with anyone outside of our team bubble.

The team that utilizes the NBA style bubble approach may be the one that wins the CFP.   And since Cincy must have the smallest entourage maybe they will be the CFP champs.

I suspect Covid protocols will be modified to reflect the reality that few (if any) of these competitors are actually sick - or sick beyond typical cold symptoms, maybe some flu symptoms.  In light of that, why not just play the games with those who test negative?  Or those vaccinated who test negative?

All these "close contact" prohibitions are of dubious value, imo, in the real world.  And they certainly do economic harm (not to mention emotional harm, for lack of a better term).

We'll see . . .

Agree wholeheartedly. It's getting to the point where we are penalizing too many of the vaccinated and getting little for it.

[BillBradley]

This is why I'm hesitant to book any trips to away games. I was considering going to to LA games for the women in February but am holding off until the last minute to book a hotel. It'll probably cost more money for late bookings but it's the only option with Covid, especially with the LA schools.

Completely agree.   My guess is flying to Hawaii and/or interacting with enough people in the transportation and hospitality industries made this inevitable.  Not a big deal for a regular season basketball game, but if I had a team in the CFP semis I would have them embracing the full time use of N95 masks and absolutely no interaction with anyone outside of our team bubble.

The team that utilizes the NBA style bubble approach may be the one that wins the CFP.   And since Cincy must have the smallest entourage maybe they will be the CFP champs.

I suspect Covid protocols will be modified to reflect the reality that few (if any) of these competitors are actually sick - or sick beyond typical cold symptoms, maybe some flu symptoms.  In light of that, why not just play the games with those who test negative?  Or those vaccinated who test negative?

All these "close contact" prohibitions are of dubious value, imo, in the real world.  And they certainly do economic harm (not to mention emotional harm, for lack of a better term).

We'll see . . .

Agree wholeheartedly. It's getting to the point where we are penalizing too many of the vaccinated and getting little for it.

[Madera86]

I would imagine we could move to a “test to stay” model, as my kids’ schools have.  For close contacts, as long as daily rapid tests are negative, they can play.

I think it would be hard to justify sending positive players out there, even if asymptomatic.  It’s not that they would be in danger, but that they run the risk of infecting others, and although most of the other players they are playing with are low risk, not everyone they come in contact with (coaches, support staff, etc.) will be, so it is best to isolate known positives until they are no longer infectious. What that time period ought to be is up to debate, but a relatively short period (7 days, or even 5, down from ten may be ok.

BC

But aren't those others, who are not low-risk, vaccinated? 

It just seems to be simpler to focus on vaccination, masking, isolation, etc., of the smaller high-risk population, as we do with the flu, shingles, hepatitis, etc., rather than trying to get 100% of the larger population to comply 100% of the time. And by "the time", I mean indefinitely.

[Madera86]

I would imagine we could move to a “test to stay” model, as my kids’ schools have.  For close contacts, as long as daily rapid tests are negative, they can play.

I think it would be hard to justify sending positive players out there, even if asymptomatic.  It’s not that they would be in danger, but that they run the risk of infecting others, and although most of the other players they are playing with are low risk, not everyone they come in contact with (coaches, support staff, etc.) will be, so it is best to isolate known positives until they are no longer infectious. What that time period ought to be is up to debate, but a relatively short period (7 days, or even 5, down from ten may be ok.

BC

But aren't those others, who are not low-risk, vaccinated? 

It just seems to be simpler to focus on vaccination, masking, isolation, etc., of the smaller high-risk population, as we do with the flu, shingles, hepatitis, etc., rather than trying to get 100% of the larger population to comply 100% of the time. And by "the time", I mean indefinitely.

[old spanish trail]

I would imagine we could move to a “test to stay” model, as my kids’ schools have.  For close contacts, as long as daily rapid tests are negative, they can play.

I think it would be hard to justify sending positive players out there, even if asymptomatic.  It’s not that they would be in danger, but that they run the risk of infecting others, and although most of the other players they are playing with are low risk, not everyone they come in contact with (coaches, support staff, etc.) will be, so it is best to isolate known positives until they are no longer infectious. What that time period ought to be is up to debate, but a relatively short period (7 days, or even 5, down from ten may be ok.

BC

But aren't those others, who are not low-risk, vaccinated? 

It just seems to be simpler to focus on vaccination, masking, isolation, etc., of the smaller high-risk population, as we do with the flu, shingles, hepatitis, etc., rather than trying to get 100% of the larger population to comply 100% of the time. And by "the time", I mean indefinitely.

That may be where we end up, but we are still collecting info as we go, and modifying accordingly. Some will want to move that process along faster (assuming we can), but after what we have been through, I'm for taking the careful route.

[old spanish trail]

I would imagine we could move to a “test to stay” model, as my kids’ schools have.  For close contacts, as long as daily rapid tests are negative, they can play.

I think it would be hard to justify sending positive players out there, even if asymptomatic.  It’s not that they would be in danger, but that they run the risk of infecting others, and although most of the other players they are playing with are low risk, not everyone they come in contact with (coaches, support staff, etc.) will be, so it is best to isolate known positives until they are no longer infectious. What that time period ought to be is up to debate, but a relatively short period (7 days, or even 5, down from ten may be ok.

BC

But aren't those others, who are not low-risk, vaccinated? 

It just seems to be simpler to focus on vaccination, masking, isolation, etc., of the smaller high-risk population, as we do with the flu, shingles, hepatitis, etc., rather than trying to get 100% of the larger population to comply 100% of the time. And by "the time", I mean indefinitely.

That may be where we end up, but we are still collecting info as we go, and modifying accordingly. Some will want to move that process along faster (assuming we can), but after what we have been through, I'm for taking the careful route.

[chrisk]

The smaller high-risk population is not all that small.
The focus can't just be on them. The carrots and sticks for the unvaccinated
need to be seriously ramped up, from the current mostly laissez-faire attitude.
Much of the risk for the higher-risk population is unknowingly coming into
contact with the unvaxxed.

[chrisk]

The smaller high-risk population is not all that small.
The focus can't just be on them. The carrots and sticks for the unvaccinated
need to be seriously ramped up, from the current mostly laissez-faire attitude.
Much of the risk for the higher-risk population is unknowingly coming into
contact with the unvaxxed.

[old spanish trail]

The smaller high-risk population is not all that small. 
The focus can't just be on them.  The carrots and sticks for the unvaccinated
need to be seriously ramped up, from the current mostly laissez-faire attitude.
Much of the risk for the higher-risk population is unknowingly coming into
contact with the unvaxxed.

Yes re high risk folks.

[old spanish trail]

The smaller high-risk population is not all that small. 
The focus can't just be on them.  The carrots and sticks for the unvaccinated
need to be seriously ramped up, from the current mostly laissez-faire attitude.
Much of the risk for the higher-risk population is unknowingly coming into
contact with the unvaxxed.

Yes re high risk folks.

[burger]

Whatever you think of Haase as a coach, he seems like a really good guy:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/sambeskind/status/1475287648189091840[/tweet]

[burger]

Whatever you think of Haase as a coach, he seems like a really good guy:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/sambeskind/status/1475287648189091840[/tweet]

[martyup]

Let's put the brakes on further Covid discussion.

[martyup]

Let's put the brakes on further Covid discussion.

[admin]

Current discussion is fine. Keep it focused and steer clear of attacking one another, which so far, everyone's doing.

[admin]

Current discussion is fine. Keep it focused and steer clear of attacking one another, which so far, everyone's doing.

[JJJ]

Whatever you think of Haase as a coach, he seems like a really good guy:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/sambeskind/status/1475287648189091840[/tweet]

Thanks for sharing.

[JJJ]

Whatever you think of Haase as a coach, he seems like a really good guy:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/sambeskind/status/1475287648189091840[/tweet]

Thanks for sharing.

[teejers1]

Whatever you think of Haase as a coach, he seems like a really good guy:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/sambeskind/status/1475287648189091840[/tweet]

Thanks for sharing.

I do think Haase is a really good guy, but not sure this necessarily supports that proposition.
I mean, if the team isn't practicing (which I deem a given), then is there a better place to spend some days off than Hawaii, particularly if you're already there?  Yeah, Haase could have somebody else run the few daily errands for his team members, but still, doesn't seem like particularly burdensome or unpleasant duty . . .

I hope the team gets clear on test results and manages to continue to find ways to win.  I didn't watch the last couple games, so didn't comment on what transpired.  But it seems like many here want to blame coach for things that strike me as poor player execution matters (missed FTs being the most notable).  But as a long time critic of Shaw, I certainly understand the validity of criticism even if the team wins a game, so I'm open to coach criticism after a victory.

But in classic "scheme v. execution," I think FTs fall almost entirely on latter.  But I do wonder if a coach's sideline demeanor down the stretch can impart "calm confidence" vs. "nervous uncertainty" and that can have an effect on players at the stripe.  It's possible.  [Of course, this is rank speculation here].  But my gut tells me that certain players want to be on the FT line with game on the line (or game-protection on the line) - and there are countless players in Stanford history who fit this bill (Hernandez, Lee, Mendez, Casey, Moseley, Goods, Hill, Lopez, etc., etc.).  And my gut further tells me that it wouldn't matter who the coach on the sideline is for those guys - they are knocking 'em down.  

But who on this team do you want at the stripe late, in must-make situations?  It appears that Jones is moving up the charts and Delaire might be up there, too.  And even though I'm a MOC as starting PG supporter, Silva strikes me as having a bit of Moseley in him (no fear), and on that basis I think he'd be pretty clutch at the line.  Ingram has played in lots of top flight competition, and you like to think he'd do okay.  Angel and Taitz?  Maybe.  The rest fall somewhere between "uncertain" and "preferably not."

[teejers1]

Whatever you think of Haase as a coach, he seems like a really good guy:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/sambeskind/status/1475287648189091840[/tweet]

Thanks for sharing.

I do think Haase is a really good guy, but not sure this necessarily supports that proposition.
I mean, if the team isn't practicing (which I deem a given), then is there a better place to spend some days off than Hawaii, particularly if you're already there?  Yeah, Haase could have somebody else run the few daily errands for his team members, but still, doesn't seem like particularly burdensome or unpleasant duty . . .

I hope the team gets clear on test results and manages to continue to find ways to win.  I didn't watch the last couple games, so didn't comment on what transpired.  But it seems like many here want to blame coach for things that strike me as poor player execution matters (missed FTs being the most notable).  But as a long time critic of Shaw, I certainly understand the validity of criticism even if the team wins a game, so I'm open to coach criticism after a victory.

But in classic "scheme v. execution," I think FTs fall almost entirely on latter.  But I do wonder if a coach's sideline demeanor down the stretch can impart "calm confidence" vs. "nervous uncertainty" and that can have an effect on players at the stripe.  It's possible.  [Of course, this is rank speculation here].  But my gut tells me that certain players want to be on the FT line with game on the line (or game-protection on the line) - and there are countless players in Stanford history who fit this bill (Hernandez, Lee, Mendez, Casey, Moseley, Goods, Hill, Lopez, etc., etc.).  And my gut further tells me that it wouldn't matter who the coach on the sideline is for those guys - they are knocking 'em down.  

But who on this team do you want at the stripe late, in must-make situations?  It appears that Jones is moving up the charts and Delaire might be up there, too.  And even though I'm a MOC as starting PG supporter, Silva strikes me as having a bit of Moseley in him (no fear), and on that basis I think he'd be pretty clutch at the line.  Ingram has played in lots of top flight competition, and you like to think he'd do okay.  Angel and Taitz?  Maybe.  The rest fall somewhere between "uncertain" and "preferably not."

[SamuelMcF]

But who on this team do you want at the stripe late, in must-make situations?  It appears that Jones is moving up the charts and Delaire might be up there, too.  And even though I'm a MOC as starting PG supporter, Silva strikes me as having a bit of Moseley in him (no fear), and on that basis I think he'd be pretty clutch at the line.  Ingram has played in lots of top flight competition, and you like to think he'd do okay.  Angel and Taitz?  Maybe.  The rest fall somewhere between "uncertain" and "preferably not."

Max Murrell has missed exactly one FT in his Stanford career. I want him at the line. (But of course he's not usually in the game in crunch time...)

[SamuelMcF]

But who on this team do you want at the stripe late, in must-make situations?  It appears that Jones is moving up the charts and Delaire might be up there, too.  And even though I'm a MOC as starting PG supporter, Silva strikes me as having a bit of Moseley in him (no fear), and on that basis I think he'd be pretty clutch at the line.  Ingram has played in lots of top flight competition, and you like to think he'd do okay.  Angel and Taitz?  Maybe.  The rest fall somewhere between "uncertain" and "preferably not."

Max Murrell has missed exactly one FT in his Stanford career. I want him at the line. (But of course he's not usually in the game in crunch time...)

[2006alum]

But who on this team do you want at the stripe late, in must-make situations?  It appears that Jones is moving up the charts and Delaire might be up there, too.  And even though I'm a MOC as starting PG supporter, Silva strikes me as having a bit of Moseley in him (no fear), and on that basis I think he'd be pretty clutch at the line.  Ingram has played in lots of top flight competition, and you like to think he'd do okay.  Angel and Taitz?  Maybe.  The rest fall somewhere between "uncertain" and "preferably not."

Max Murrell has missed exactly one FT in his Stanford career. I want him at the line. (But of course he's not usually in the game in crunch time...)

He's a 6'9" forward to boot! Could Tara get him to teach a free throw shooting clinic to our women's team, most especially Brink?

[2006alum]

But who on this team do you want at the stripe late, in must-make situations?  It appears that Jones is moving up the charts and Delaire might be up there, too.  And even though I'm a MOC as starting PG supporter, Silva strikes me as having a bit of Moseley in him (no fear), and on that basis I think he'd be pretty clutch at the line.  Ingram has played in lots of top flight competition, and you like to think he'd do okay.  Angel and Taitz?  Maybe.  The rest fall somewhere between "uncertain" and "preferably not."

Max Murrell has missed exactly one FT in his Stanford career. I want him at the line. (But of course he's not usually in the game in crunch time...)

He's a 6'9" forward to boot! Could Tara get him to teach a free throw shooting clinic to our women's team, most especially Brink?

[SamuelMcF]

But who on this team do you want at the stripe late, in must-make situations?  It appears that Jones is moving up the charts and Delaire might be up there, too.  And even though I'm a MOC as starting PG supporter, Silva strikes me as having a bit of Moseley in him (no fear), and on that basis I think he'd be pretty clutch at the line.  Ingram has played in lots of top flight competition, and you like to think he'd do okay.  Angel and Taitz?  Maybe.  The rest fall somewhere between "uncertain" and "preferably not."

Max Murrell has missed exactly one FT in his Stanford career. I want him at the line. (But of course he's not usually in the game in crunch time...)

He's a 6'9" forward to boot! Could Tara get him to teach a free throw shooting clinic to our women's team, most especially Brink?

He should probably start with his own team first.

[SamuelMcF]

But who on this team do you want at the stripe late, in must-make situations?  It appears that Jones is moving up the charts and Delaire might be up there, too.  And even though I'm a MOC as starting PG supporter, Silva strikes me as having a bit of Moseley in him (no fear), and on that basis I think he'd be pretty clutch at the line.  Ingram has played in lots of top flight competition, and you like to think he'd do okay.  Angel and Taitz?  Maybe.  The rest fall somewhere between "uncertain" and "preferably not."

Max Murrell has missed exactly one FT in his Stanford career. I want him at the line. (But of course he's not usually in the game in crunch time...)

He's a 6'9" forward to boot! Could Tara get him to teach a free throw shooting clinic to our women's team, most especially Brink?

He should probably start with his own team first.

[JJJ]

recap from MBB:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZUb2-zLf-E

[JJJ]

recap from MBB:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZUb2-zLf-E