|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jan 7, 2024 13:08:45 GMT -8
From Canzano and since it is coming from JC I take it with a grain of salt . That being said , would it even be possible for any of the deserters to come crawling back , ever? “We’re already hearing rumblings that some schools that are leaving the Pac-12 aren’t happy. We’ll see, if maybe two years out there aren’t some looking to come back with us.” — Wayne Tinkle If anybody has regrets, it is Cal and Stanford. Everybody else landed in stable situations that pay more, particularly the Big-12 schools. They aren't being geographically punished like the Big-10 teams. But Cal and Stanford are absolutely getting the short end of the stick in the next most unstable conference there is. From where I sit, OSU and WSU are in a better position than Stanford and Cal for the long term. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jan 7, 2024 13:47:30 GMT -8
From Canzano and since it is coming from JC I take it with a grain of salt . That being said , would it even be possible for any of the deserters to come crawling back , ever? “We’re already hearing rumblings that some schools that are leaving the Pac-12 aren’t happy. We’ll see, if maybe two years out there aren’t some looking to come back with us.” — Wayne Tinkle They haven't even left yet . Unless you're a New York City politician talking about Amazon's 'second headquarters' being asked to leave before it even got there, it's pretty silly to think some schools might decide they miss what they once had while they still have it. Scheduling is a 24/7, 12-month of the year concern. I suspect some of the Olympic sport coaches are smart enough to see the challenges that will await them in the future and realize full-well they will miss what they will have for two more months (winter sports), four more months (spring sports), or never again (fall sports). Fall sports start their seasons in less than eight months. That's not that long. These coaches are also recruiting current high school juniors and sophomores. Whether you believe Canzano or not, he said one of the things that most matter to recruits and their parents is how much travel will be involved, for both the player and for the parents, who often wish to follow their child's careers in person. They certainly are concerned. They know what they have, travel-wise. They know they certainly are going to miss the convenience of a compacted conference travel footprint. Especially when the new reality for the Bay Area schools is trips to Indiana, Texas, New York State, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North and South Carolina and Florida. |
|
|
|
Post by ee1990 on Jan 7, 2024 14:27:28 GMT -8
Some coach complaining about having to travel to New Jersey for a softball game doesn't mean the universities "aren't happy".
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 7, 2024 14:35:24 GMT -8
Yeah like the decisions made to move were made for the student-athletes' benefit!
Money grab by those that only see $
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jan 7, 2024 15:02:17 GMT -8
Some coach complaining about having to travel to New Jersey for a softball game doesn't mean the universities "aren't happy". When the complaints begin to pile up from coaches, athletes and parents, those in charge will hear plenty about it. And the administrators, many of whom already view athletics as a huge PITA, won't be happy about it. I expect Tinkle meant "coaches" when he said "universities." And I expect he'll be proven correct over time, even though no coach or administrator from a departing Pac-12 school will ever, ever go on the record about it. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Jan 7, 2024 16:54:11 GMT -8
Most will be back, just a matter of when. Logistics over time will prevail. We should show enough class and grace to accept them without being punitive. Some crafty student should calculate the "travel carbon footprint" of the T10 vs. what they had while in Pac-12. Would love to see the Presidents of those universities try to explain how the new conference is the best decision.
Semper Gumby.
GO BEAVS!
POTY candidate. Extra points for that avatar. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jan 7, 2024 17:03:59 GMT -8
Some crafty student should calculate the "travel carbon footprint" of the T10 vs. what they had while in Pac-12. Would love to see the Presidents of those universities try to explain how the new conference is the best decision.
Semper Gumby.
GO BEAVS!
POTY candidate. Extra points for that avatar. The carbon footprint for travel will be beyond minor. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbeav on Jan 7, 2024 23:49:13 GMT -8
From Canzano and since it is coming from JC I take it with a grain of salt . That being said , would it even be possible for any of the deserters to come crawling back , ever? “We’re already hearing rumblings that some schools that are leaving the Pac-12 aren’t happy. We’ll see, if maybe two years out there aren’t some looking to come back with us.” — Wayne Tinkle If anybody has regrets, it is Cal and Stanford. Everybody else landed in stable situations that pay more, particularly the Big-12 schools. They aren't being geographically punished like the Big-10 teams. But Cal and Stanford are absolutely getting the short end of the stick in the next most unstable conference there is. From where I sit, OSU and WSU are in a better position than Stanford and Cal for the long term. I've wondered if there's any significance to the fact that the one former Pac team on our schedule next year (besides uo) is Cal. Shows at least that our AD's are on good terms and talking, and one might even be tempted to see it as an indication of them wanting to stay in our good graces. I think Stanford is a lost cause of stubborn stupidity, but I would put very good odds at Cal coming to their senses and rejoining the Pac some time in the next several years.... |
|
grackle
Sophomore
Posts: 1,096 
Member is Online
|
Post by grackle on Jan 8, 2024 8:38:18 GMT -8
From Canzano and since it is coming from JC I take it with a grain of salt . That being said , would it even be possible for any of the deserters to come crawling back , ever? “We’re already hearing rumblings that some schools that are leaving the Pac-12 aren’t happy. We’ll see, if maybe two years out there aren’t some looking to come back with us.” — Wayne Tinkle If anybody has regrets, it is Cal and Stanford. Everybody else landed in stable situations that pay more, particularly the Big-12 schools. They aren't being geographically punished like the Big-10 teams. But Cal and Stanford are absolutely getting the short end of the stick in the next most unstable conference there is. From where I sit, OSU and WSU are in a better position than Stanford and Cal for the long term. I know for a fact that at both Cal and Stanford there is campus-wide dissatisfaction with the hasty decision to move to a conference on the opposite coast. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 8, 2024 11:02:13 GMT -8
Some crafty student should calculate the "travel carbon footprint" of the T10 vs. what they had while in Pac-12. Would love to see the Presidents of those universities try to explain how the new conference is the best decision.
Semper Gumby.
GO BEAVS!
The carbon footprint won't appreciably change much at all. Football flies charter. So four or five times a year, the charter will fly four or five additional hours on round-trips that will now take 10 hours total instead of five or six. Minimal impact. The other teams almost always fly commercial, on routes that will be flown whether or not the Washington/Oregon/SC/UCLA baseball/softball/basketball/soccer/volleyball teams are on them or not. So that won't change the carbon footprint one bit. Carbon footprint won't change their thinking. Increased travel costs, athlete burnout from excess travel, and potential Title IX lawsuits from Olympic-sport athletes because they don't also fly charters will be the eventual tipping point. Stanford is already having a huge problem controlling their Oly sport athletes. Stanford is concerned that their athletes will all unionize. One of the big reasons that the 2020 Pac-12 football season went so sideways and wound up destroying the Pac-12 is because Stanford stopped the Pac-12 from playing more than seven games. They did this, because they had committed to cancel the football season and did not want to show more favor to the football team than all of the other fall sports. Unfortunately, the other 11 Pac-12 teams did not have the balls to stand up to Stanford and start the Pac-12 season without 'em. (UCLA and USC begged to start the season early, even if they had to play non-Pac-12 teams.) Stanford was allowed to stall the season out until there were only seven weekends left to play. UCLA and USC were out of the door 18 months later. (The awful mishandling of the 2020 COVID-19 season by, primarily, Stanford's President and the just wretched 2021 football season and 2021-22 basketball season were the final nails in the coffin for UCLA and USC to stay in the Pac-12.) I am hoping that the non-football athletes at Stanford convince their administration to play a more regional schedule immediately. Unlike almost every other school, the non-football athletes at Stanford hold a ton of power over the administration and boosters. Every hour extra a plane is in the air pumps more CO2 into the atmosphere than more than 18 people driving will produce in an entire year. Planes being in the air for 4-5 hours more per year is more than the amount of CO2 of 72-90 people driving will produce in an entire year. And that is just for one trip! For the four Pac-12 teams in the Big Ten, there will be 28 extra cross country trips next year. (14 for the Pac-12 teams going East and 14 for the Big Ten teams going West.) That is roughly the equivalent of 2,000-2,500 extra drivers spewing out CO2 for an entire year. And that is just football! As for non-football sports, they fly commercial, but the commercial airlines will add flights to meet demand. If they add one extra four- or five-hour flight each way, you are talking about the amount of CO2 produced by 144-180 people driving in an entire year. And once again, that is one trip for one team. 28 Big Ten sports. If each add 28 extra cross-county trips (probably more for non-football sports) for the other 27, you are looking at adding the equivalent of the CO2 produced by between 54,000-68,000 drivers per year. Or the amount that one driver would be expected to produce in between 54,000 and 68,000 years, if that helps conceptually. That is not an inconsequential amount of CO2. That is a ridiculous amount of CO2 for athletics. Everyone who cares about the environment should be all over this. |
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Jan 8, 2024 12:52:48 GMT -8
From Canzano and since it is coming from JC I take it with a grain of salt . That being said , would it even be possible for any of the deserters to come crawling back , ever? “We’re already hearing rumblings that some schools that are leaving the Pac-12 aren’t happy. We’ll see, if maybe two years out there aren’t some looking to come back with us.” — Wayne Tinkle The key reason we were in a conference together for decades to begin with is because it made so much sense geographically. That has not changed. Even better, it exactly after the occurrences of severe off field transgressions which gives birth to heightened rivalries. Playing teams/programs you have a grudge against draws more attendance and brings out more energy from players, coaches, and fans alike. I'm hard pressed to find a downside in answering the door should former conference mates come a knocking. Without the other team, you're just playing with yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jan 8, 2024 15:03:45 GMT -8
The carbon footprint won't appreciably change much at all. Football flies charter. So four or five times a year, the charter will fly four or five additional hours on round-trips that will now take 10 hours total instead of five or six. Minimal impact. The other teams almost always fly commercial, on routes that will be flown whether or not the Washington/Oregon/SC/UCLA baseball/softball/basketball/soccer/volleyball teams are on them or not. So that won't change the carbon footprint one bit. Carbon footprint won't change their thinking. Increased travel costs, athlete burnout from excess travel, and potential Title IX lawsuits from Olympic-sport athletes because they don't also fly charters will be the eventual tipping point. Stanford is already having a huge problem controlling their Oly sport athletes. Stanford is concerned that their athletes will all unionize. One of the big reasons that the 2020 Pac-12 football season went so sideways and wound up destroying the Pac-12 is because Stanford stopped the Pac-12 from playing more than seven games. They did this, because they had committed to cancel the football season and did not want to show more favor to the football team than all of the other fall sports. Unfortunately, the other 11 Pac-12 teams did not have the balls to stand up to Stanford and start the Pac-12 season without 'em. (UCLA and USC begged to start the season early, even if they had to play non-Pac-12 teams.) Stanford was allowed to stall the season out until there were only seven weekends left to play. UCLA and USC were out of the door 18 months later. (The awful mishandling of the 2020 COVID-19 season by, primarily, Stanford's President and the just wretched 2021 football season and 2021-22 basketball season were the final nails in the coffin for UCLA and USC to stay in the Pac-12.) I am hoping that the non-football athletes at Stanford convince their administration to play a more regional schedule immediately. Unlike almost every other school, the non-football athletes at Stanford hold a ton of power over the administration and boosters. Every hour extra a plane is in the air pumps more CO2 into the atmosphere than more than 18 people driving will produce in an entire year. Planes being in the air for 4-5 hours more per year is more than the amount of CO2 of 72-90 people driving will produce in an entire year. And that is just for one trip! For the four Pac-12 teams in the Big Ten, there will be 28 extra cross country trips next year. (14 for the Pac-12 teams going East and 14 for the Big Ten teams going West.) That is roughly the equivalent of 2,000-2,500 extra drivers spewing out CO2 for an entire year. And that is just football! As for non-football sports, they fly commercial, but the commercial airlines will add flights to meet demand. If they add one extra four- or five-hour flight each way, you are talking about the amount of CO2 produced by 144-180 people driving in an entire year. And once again, that is one trip for one team. 28 Big Ten sports. If each add 28 extra cross-county trips (probably more for non-football sports) for the other 27, you are looking at adding the equivalent of the CO2 produced by between 54,000-68,000 drivers per year. Or the amount that one driver would be expected to produce in between 54,000 and 68,000 years, if that helps conceptually. That is not an inconsequential amount of CO2. That is a ridiculous amount of CO2 for athletics. Everyone who cares about the environment should be all over this. After take off (which itself burns around 2,400 gallons of fuel) a 737-800 burns 850 gallons of fuel per hour while at altitude and cruising (approximately 520 MPH). This makes for some easy, eye popping napkin math per extra 500 miles flown. According to an older Daily Emerald article. U of O traveled 4,509 miles this season for road games. Next year, they will travel 12,618 miles, an additional 8,109 miles. To keep it simple, lets call it +8,000 miles travel this year. Flying in a current typical 737, they personally be responsible for an additional 16 hours of flying time, which is an additional 13,600 gallons of aviation fuel burned, which is is an additional 286,960 pounds (~143 tons) of CO2 burned. by just the university of Oregon for JUST their football travel. (and I rounded down...) We haven't even looked at Basketball and all the other sports. It really is a spectacularly daunting number. now times all of that by about 4 because they all have about the same travel burden. The average American, through all means (car, plane travel, etc, etc) is responsible for 16 tons per year. This assumes a person is driving the US average of around 12,000 miles per year! |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 8, 2024 16:23:09 GMT -8
Stanford is already having a huge problem controlling their Oly sport athletes. Stanford is concerned that their athletes will all unionize. One of the big reasons that the 2020 Pac-12 football season went so sideways and wound up destroying the Pac-12 is because Stanford stopped the Pac-12 from playing more than seven games. They did this, because they had committed to cancel the football season and did not want to show more favor to the football team than all of the other fall sports. Unfortunately, the other 11 Pac-12 teams did not have the balls to stand up to Stanford and start the Pac-12 season without 'em. (UCLA and USC begged to start the season early, even if they had to play non-Pac-12 teams.) Stanford was allowed to stall the season out until there were only seven weekends left to play. UCLA and USC were out of the door 18 months later. (The awful mishandling of the 2020 COVID-19 season by, primarily, Stanford's President and the just wretched 2021 football season and 2021-22 basketball season were the final nails in the coffin for UCLA and USC to stay in the Pac-12.) I am hoping that the non-football athletes at Stanford convince their administration to play a more regional schedule immediately. Unlike almost every other school, the non-football athletes at Stanford hold a ton of power over the administration and boosters. Every hour extra a plane is in the air pumps more CO2 into the atmosphere than more than 18 people driving will produce in an entire year. Planes being in the air for 4-5 hours more per year is more than the amount of CO2 of 72-90 people driving will produce in an entire year. And that is just for one trip! For the four Pac-12 teams in the Big Ten, there will be 28 extra cross country trips next year. (14 for the Pac-12 teams going East and 14 for the Big Ten teams going West.) That is roughly the equivalent of 2,000-2,500 extra drivers spewing out CO2 for an entire year. And that is just football! As for non-football sports, they fly commercial, but the commercial airlines will add flights to meet demand. If they add one extra four- or five-hour flight each way, you are talking about the amount of CO2 produced by 144-180 people driving in an entire year. And once again, that is one trip for one team. 28 Big Ten sports. If each add 28 extra cross-county trips (probably more for non-football sports) for the other 27, you are looking at adding the equivalent of the CO2 produced by between 54,000-68,000 drivers per year. Or the amount that one driver would be expected to produce in between 54,000 and 68,000 years, if that helps conceptually. That is not an inconsequential amount of CO2. That is a ridiculous amount of CO2 for athletics. Everyone who cares about the environment should be all over this. After take off (which itself burns around 2,400 gallons of fuel) a 737-800 burns 850 gallons of fuel per hour while at altitude and cruising (approximately 520 MPH). This makes for some easy, eye popping napkin math per extra 500 miles flown. According to an older Daily Emerald article. U of O traveled 4,509 miles this season for road games. Next year, they will travel 12,618 miles, an additional 8,109 miles. To keep it simple, lets call it +8,000 miles travel this year. Flying in a current typical 737, they personally be responsible for an additional 16 hours of flying time, which is an additional 13,600 gallons of aviation fuel burned, which is is an additional 286,960 pounds (~143 tons) of CO2 burned. by just the university of Oregon for JUST their football travel. (and I rounded down...) We haven't even looked at Basketball and all the other sports. It really is a spectacularly daunting number. now times all of that by about 4 because they all have about the same travel burden. The average American, through all means (car, plane travel, etc, etc) is responsible for 16 tons per year. This assumes a person is driving the US average of around 12,000 miles per year! The thing about CO2 produced by airplanes is that there is a far higher chance that such CO2 will remains int he atmosphere. About twice as much CO2 stays in the atmosphere as a car. The airplane and automobile industries each play with those numbers. Airplanes point out that, mile-for-mile, planes produce less CO2 than cars. Your numbers are probably more accurate than mine, otherwise, because I was looking at 747 numbers, not 737s. |
|
