Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

As most people here know, I'm a raging liberal. I don't believe that influences my strong feelings about the COVID-19 pandemic, but I know many of you do. You probably think that my liberalism blinds me to certain points of view and blocks me from changing my views based on new information. Go ahead and think that.

Meanwhile, I'm here to say the Pac-12 needs to gather its presidents and revote on when to start playing football. The vote should happen right now.

Here's the article that changed my mind:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/14/ ... 2s-season/

I already posted about the importance of the Pac-12's daily testing agreement, but even I didn't understand the science behind these tests and how they're even bigger game-changers than anticipated. They're likely BETTER than the daily tests administered by NFL teams because they're more likely to identify infectious people at the moment when they're actually contagious.

I've been following Jon Wilner's Twitter and he has lots of good info. (He usually does.) He's been talking about how the Pac-12's biggest hurdle are the state restrictions in OR and CA and how colleges didn't get the same exemptions as NFL teams because they couldn't do daily testing. Well.. now, colleges can! And if they can do it even better than the pros, then there's no good reason not to grant the same exemptions -- and this really shouldn't be up for debate.

Wilner also says the Pac-12 presidents likely won't be called for a vote until after state exemptions are granted... but this is where I'd love for the Pac-12 to take initiative (a huge ask under Larry Scott) and put some political pressure on our elected leaders. Our state may be divided politically, but we're mostly either Duck or Beaver fans, and this seems like one of those rare momemnts when universal "bipartisan" pressure could actually work.

Here's hoping the powers that be at Pac-12 HQ are getting off their asses and making things happen. If the Pac-12 gets these tests in place by Oct. and doesn't move heaven and earth to get on the field by November then it really is a joke.

Didn't Oregon already opt out of any delayed start?

I think it's too late. Even if we play this fall, we likely wouldn't start until what.. November?

https://www.si.com/college/washington/f ... ber-return

ESPN, however, reports that the Pac-12 is considering mid-November for its earliest possible return date. The conference is closely watching the actions of the Big Ten, no doubt concerned about being the only Power 5 group not playing football at some point.

The Pac-12 is poised to act should the Big Ten make any pronouncement this week on the resumption of football, a source said.

I read somewhere that the coaches would need at least 6 weeks to get everything ready for a normal fall camp. I'm not sure how much notice they'd need beforehand, though. All players, coaches and staff would have to be tested and any quarantines made. That would have at least some bearing.

Also, would the conference basically force all players and staff into bubbles at each school in order to protect each other?

Finally, what about post season play? The SEC, Big-12, ACC, etc are all playing 10 games. We'd only have 2 teams playing 10.

I read somewhere that the coaches would need at least 6 weeks to get everything ready for a normal fall camp. I'm not sure how much notice they'd need beforehand, though. All players, coaches and staff would have to be tested and any quarantines made. That would have at least some bearing.

Also, would the conference basically force all players and staff into bubbles at each school in order to protect each other?

Finally, what about post season play? The SEC, Big-12, ACC, etc are all playing 10 games. We'd only have 2 teams playing 10.

In an interview with Canzano, MC said he could get the Ducks ready to play in as little as four weeks.

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/john_ ... eason.html

With daily rapid tests that produce results so quickly, the players wouldn't need to be in a bubble -- that's what makes these tests so crucial. Players would be expected to be SMART and avoid unsafe situations, and those who get inefcted would never get the chance to set foot in athletic facilities with other teammates. Yes, there would still be inefections, but not because of football. The daily tests would effectively create a new football bubble on a daily basis.

No clue about postseason play, but obviously chances are better with an earlier start. The Pac-12 could get to 10 games per team simply by playing a larger conference schedule.

Also, I don't know the answer to this... but if only six wins are needed for bowl eligibility, then why couldn't some Pac-12 teams still be bowl-eligible with just 8-9 games on the schedule?

So does all this talk of restarting mean that the list of player demands has somehow been resolved? Because I could have sworn they said they weren't going to play unless their demands were met.

Phalanx wrote:So does all this talk of restarting mean that the list of player demands has somehow been resolved? Because I could have sworn they said they weren't going to play unless their demands were met.

That's what I'm wondering, what about the strike? Wasn't that a big part of the season being so delayed behind other conferences? Part of me wonders if the Pac-12 players thought other conference players would join in, and when they didn't the players decided to back off the demands in that strike.

Merganzer wrote:https://www.si.com/college/washington/f ... ber-return

ESPN, however, reports that the Pac-12 is considering mid-November for its earliest possible return date. The conference is closely watching the actions of the Big Ten, no doubt concerned about being the only Power 5 group not playing football at some point.

The Pac-12 is poised to act should the Big Ten make any pronouncement this week on the resumption of football, a source said.

That mindset reflects poorly on the Pac-12. Almost sounds like we would rather follow the crowd than do what's right. Which is ironic because the Pac-12 thought they were the trend setter when they first announced they wouldn't have a season. Oh how the haughty fall.

Maybe that's just me, but this makes us look weak and lacking principles.

Maybe that's just me, but this makes us look weak and lacking principles.

It totally does, and worse, it makes us look weak across the entire spectrum.

I believe we did the right thing by postponing the season. College football can't operate in a bubble, and we didn't have the testing in place to play without that. But now we do, so there shouldn't be an issue! People who truly believe in the science should be advocating for the Pac-12 to play.

Agree, the Pac-12 looks like a bunch of weak followers right now. It's pretty sad. I wish Larry Scott would resign or be fired.

pezsez1 wrote:

Maybe that's just me, but this makes us look weak and lacking principles.

It totally does, and worse, it makes us look weak across the entire spectrum.

I believe we did the right thing by postponing the season. College football can't operate in a bubble, and we didn't have the testing in place to play without that. But now we do, so there shouldn't be an issue! People who truly believe in the science should be advocating for the Pac-12 to play.

Agree, the Pac-12 looks like a bunch of weak followers right now. It's pretty sad. I wish Larry Scott would resign or be fired.

I'm not one to defend Scott often, believe me I wish he was fired badly, but I personally can't blame him entirely for all of this. Does he deserve some of the blame? Sure, but he and the Pac-12 AD's were faced with a tough situations when the Pac-12 players went on strike with some very large demands. If the players had demands similar to the Big Ten, then I think you could blame Scott, but the Pac-12 players asked a lot of big things that simply can't be met, and some of which can't even be measured. If the Pac-12 players didn't go on strike, I bet we'd be in a different situation right now. To me the blame is on the strike just as much as the leadership of the Pac-12.

SuperDuck wrote:I read somewhere that the coaches would need at least 6 weeks to get everything ready for a normal fall camp. I'm not sure how much notice they'd need beforehand, though. All players, coaches and staff would have to be tested and any quarantines made. That would have at least some bearing.

Also, would the conference basically force all players and staff into bubbles at each school in order to protect each other?

Finally, what about post season play? The SEC, Big-12, ACC, etc are all playing 10 games. We'd only have 2 teams playing 10.

The conferences have each told us that for safety reasons they would need about 6 weeks before starting. Would individual schools feel comfortable starting more quickly, sure. If CMC feels like he can have the team ready in 4 weeks, that's great. Hopefully, it speaks to the readiness of the team as a whole. Not all coaches will feel that comfortable. Some may fear players will be risking greater injury by accelerating the prep time. Part of the equation will also be the baseline conditioning level of the teams. If a conference is saying they're going to start in less than 6 weeks, the players at each school have probably already started to pick up the pace of individual workouts for a few weeks.

The biggest failure was sending all of the players home. They were safe and being tested and monitored constantly. If player safety was truly the issue, that was the safest spot for all of the players.

So remember a couple of month ago when I posted reports about SEC - ACC apparently using heard immunity and intentionally getting the players infected early?

At this point the intentional part hasn't been proven, but LSU Coach Oragano now says virtually the entire team has now had it and says he hopes that means they are exempt from even retesting for 90 days as per league exemption for recovered players. LSU did not release any testing results throughout the summer/fall.

All fine and dandy but I am wondering if they are doing cardio monitoring on the recovered players, at this point that would seem to be their last major liability.

GrandpaDuck wrote:So remember a couple of month ago when I posted reports about SEC - ACC apparently using heard immunity and intentionally getting the players infected early?

At this point the intentional part hasn't been proven, but LSU Coach Oragano now says virtually the entire team has now had it and says he hopes that means they are exempt from even retesting for 90 days as per league exemption for recovered players. LSU did not release any testing results throughout the summer/fall.

All fine and dandy but I am wondering if they are doing cardio monitoring on the recovered players, at this point that would seem to be their last major liability.

If that's true they're taking a huge risk. There've been confirmed cases of re-infection of Covid-19 now, as well as the fact that there are many who've had it that are suffering from long term effects. Covid related heart problems, Covid toes, feelings of being tired or lethargic, not recovering from activity like they used to, suffering from depression for the first time, and more.