The current plan would see the Pac-12 begin its football season one week after the Big TenGETTY IMAGES
Pac-12 ADs are "targeting Oct. 31 as the preferred start of the football season, pending approval from the presidents and subject to the easing of local health restrictions," according to sources cited by Jon Wilner of the San Jose MERCURY NEWS. The plan "would place the conference one week behind the Big Ten but give the Pac-12 champion eight total games and possibly open a path to be considered for the College Football Playoff." Sources indicated that there are "three obstacles to the season beginning on Halloween." Those being "navigating the last batch of local health restrictions," along with "gaining consensus on the training camp schedule" and receiving approval from the presidents and chancellors. Wilner reports that group is set to meet Friday for a meeting in which basketball was set to be the "focal point." Now though, the football restart "will be discussed in depth with a possible vote on a date to begin the season." Still, sources "expect the presidents to lean on the medical advisors for guidance, pointing to a total of six weeks" (San Jose MERCURY NEWS, 9/18).
NOT SO FAST: Several Pac-12 coaches and administrators said that the late-October timeline "does not seem at all viable from a safety standpoint." And some Pac-12 coaches are "skeptical of their teams being physically ready to play football before mid-November." One Pac-12 head coach on Thursday said, "I don’t think people know that when the seasons were postponed, the Big Ten and Pac-12 took completely different paths. They kept going like it was still training camp. They kept the same schedule like they were gonna play. We didn’t" (THEATHLETIC.com, 9/17).
INCORRECT INFO: In Portland, James Crepea reported Pac-12 presidents and chancellors' unanimous decision last month to postpone all conference sports competition until at least Jan. 1 came after they saw a presentation that included "erroneous statistics that overstated the prevalence of COVID-19 in several of the conference’s communities during the first week of August." The "most glaring incorrect metric listed the seven-day average positivity rate for tests in Los Angeles County as 19% -- more than three times the 5.49% average listed by the L.A. County Department of Public Health." However, a member of the conference’s medical advisory group said that it "still would have recommended delaying the season, even without that statistic." Still, Crepea reports there were "numerous discrepancies in data for the seven-day moving average of positive tests within the counties of Pac-12 schools" (Portland OREGONIAN, 9/18).
HAVE IT BOTH WAYS: In Seattle, Larry Stone writes one "can’t be too picky these days," as the "wild series of events that took place Wednesday ... is leading to a welcome outcome." Now, that "doesn’t mean the Pac-12 was wrong Aug. 11 when it announced it was shutting down all sports until at least Jan. 1," for it "did the right thing then, based on COVID-19 reality at the time." Just because the other Power Five conferences were "less cautious in their zeal to play football doesn’t mean the Pac-12 and Big Ten were wrong." It is "possible to support that decision and be in favor of a restart far ahead of the original timetable" (SEATTLE TIMES, 9/18).
WHY THE WAIT? In Portland, John Canzano writes the Pac-12 "acted with the urgency of a slug in the last couple of weeks." There "apparently wasn’t a pressing desire to play football until the Pac-12 realized it had been left alone by the Big Ten." But Canzano wonders why the Pac-12 "made such a big splash about rapid-results testing a couple of weeks ago, then followed up by taking a nap." Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott called the partnership with Quidel a “game changer” on Sept. 3. Canzano: "Why was nothing done? Where was the leadership?" There is "no way the Pac-12 didn’t see the Big Ten Conference’s decision to play coming, either" (Portland OREGONIAN, 9/18).
THE FEAR IS REAL: YAHOO SPORTS' Pete Thamel wrote as the Big Ten’s decision unfolded this week, it "revealed that peer pressure is another indelible factor that’s reshaping the way conferences, schools and athletic departments are now approaching football" this year. The "power of a full slate of college football being played on Saturday ... has elicited a new feeling around college athletics -- FOMO," otherwise known as "Fear Of Missing Out." FOMO has "taken ahold of the Pac-12, Mountain West and MAC, which are all in various levels of discussion to see if they can follow the Big Ten and revive the hopes of playing at some point in the fall" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 9/17).
WHERE'S #WEAREUNITED? The MERCURY NEWS' Wilner writes one voice has been "noticeably absent from the public realm": the #WeAreUnited player-driven movement that "swallowed so much oxygen in early August [but] apparently ran out of gas in September." The "thunderous opening that included a manifesto and opt-out threats has given way to a seemingly silent demise." Their economic demands were "preposterous, a non-starter with the schools and the conference." #WeAreUnited "needs a restart." The players "need and deserve an organized platform," but there is "more work to be done" (San Jose MERCURY NEWS, 9/18).
