Gov. Wolf: Clean Energy, Business, Faith, Environmental Advocacy Organizations Support Veto of Bill that Ignored Dangers of Climate Change

first_img September 25, 2020 Energy,  Environment,  Press Release Nearly a dozen clean energy, business, faith and environmental advocacy organizations have expressed their support of Governor Tom Wolf’s recent veto of House Bill 2025, which ignored the dangers of climate change and would have prevented the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) from taking any action to abate, control or limit carbon dioxide emissions in the commonwealth without the prior approval of the General Assembly.Carbon dioxide is a harmful greenhouse gas and a major contributor to climate change, and this bill would have put a halt to DEP efforts to mitigate the impact climate change has on lives and livelihoods in Pennsylvania, including rulemaking currently being developed to allow Pennsylvania to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). RGGI is an economically sound program that has a proven record of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in member states.Clean Air Council:“I congratulated Gov. Wolf last week on the successful Environmental Quality Board vote to advance his carbon limits program forward, and I applaud him today for vetoing a reckless, dangerous piece of legislation in House Bill 2025 that would have reversed that progress. House Bill 2025 would indefinitely obstruct any and all policy efforts to reduce carbon pollution in Pennsylvania. It’s that simple. Supporters deceitfully framed it instead as a mere process bill, one that would give the General Assembly a voice in setting climate policy. This is fundamentally misleading because, under state law, the legislature already has a robust role in the development of regulations and, quite frankly, we know the legislative majority’s position: block progress, deregulate the fossil fuel industry, and drill our way to ‘prosperity,’” saidJoseph Otis Minott, Esq., executive director and chief counsel of Clean Air Council. “Climate change is an urgent, existential threat that demands serious, commensurate policy solutions. Thank you, Gov. Wolf, for standing with the vast majority of Pennsylvanians who agree and who support your plan to cut carbon while creating tens of thousands of new jobs.”Clean Power PA Coalition:“We applaud Governor Wolf for rejecting House Bill 2025 and protecting efforts to cut carbon pollution and create jobs through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). With this veto he is standing with the overwhelmingly majority of Pennsylvanians who support RGGI.A poll conducted earlier this month found that 72 percent of Pennsylvania voters are in favor of the state becoming part of RGGI. The initiative also has wide support from the business community because of the significant economic benefits it has brought to participating states and will deliver to Pennsylvania as well. Economic analysis of the program shows that it would create 27,000 jobs and boost the state economy by nearly $2 billion. It also will reduce asthma attacks and other health problems for thousands of Pennsylvania children and adults. The Governor’s veto of House Bill 2025 keeps the state moving in the right direction in tackling climate change and investing in the clean energy jobs of the future. RGGI also can provide resources to help communities affected by the continuing transition in our energy markets and ensure that workers are not left behind.”Evangelical Environmental Network:“The Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) is thankful for Gov. Tom Wolf’s veto of the ill designed House Bill 2025. House Bill 2025, if signed, would have stopped Pennsylvania from joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and continued fossil fuel pollution’s threat to our children’s health. House Bill 2025 would have kept Pennsylvania in the dark with continued dependence on dirty fossil fuels instead of rebuilding Pennsylvania with family-sustaining jobs to ensure a cleaner, brighter, and healthy future,” said the Rev. Mitchell C. Hescox, president and CEO of the Evangelical Environmental Network.“It’s well past time to transition to a clean energy economy. Today we can have both the energy to power our economy and a clean environment. We no longer must choose between a strong economy and the life and health of our children, including the unborn. One in eight women give birth prematurely in the United States each year due to PM2.5, with the number increasing to one in five for Black women (30 percent of premature infants die).“Over 2,700 Pennsylvanians died prematurely in 2018 due to Pennsylvania’s air pollution, due in good measure to the electric industry. Pennsylvania’s pollution is also believed to have contributed to more than 2,300 premature deaths in other states,” Hescox said. “All told, Pennsylvania holds the auspicious claim of having the third highest rate of air pollution-related deaths in the U.S., after California and New York. RGGI will help Pennsylvania defend our kids’ health, but our energy workers are caught in the middle. Men, women, and families suffer much to provide our energy, and we cannot leave them behind as has been done in the past. The reality is that coal plants will close in Pennsylvania, and RGGI will not likely hasten coal’s demise. That’s already occurring, and gas will be next. Fossil fuels are simply no longer economically viable. In reality, they never really were if you consider that our children paid the cost in their hearts and lungs. The true, average cost of coal is 14.87 US cent/kWh over what we paid on our meter due to pollution’s impact on public health.”Keystone Energy Efficiency Alliance:“We applaud Gov. Wolf’s leadership,” said Matt Elliott, executive director for the Keystone Energy Efficiency Alliance (KEEA). “For years, Pennsylvania has sat on the sidelines as other states in the region enjoy the benefits of RGGI. The results from participating RGGI states are clear: their economies have grown, their air is cleaner, and their clean energy markets are expanding.”Natural Resources Defense Council:“The governor’s veto of this anti-climate legislation comes as the #ClimateCrisisjeopardizes people’s health, safety, and livelihoods,” said Mark Szybist, senior attorney of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Climate and Clean Energy Program, in a tweet.Nuclear Powers PA Coalition:“(Gov. Wolf) just took a huge stand for Pennsylvania’s #cleanenergy industry and the ~100K jobs it supports in our commonwealth,” said the Nuclear Powers PA Coalition in a tweet.Moms Clean Air Force:“Moms across the Commonwealth are thankful to Gov. Wolf for his veto of House Bill2025, which further shows his commitment to reducing climate pollution and protecting the health and future of Pennsylvania’s children. Linking to RGGI will protect our children from the power sector’s dirty air pollution that impacts health and contributes to climate change,” said Patrice Tomcik, Butler County resident and Project Manager for State Campaigns for Moms Clean Air Force. “Pennsylvania’s children and other vulnerable communities deserve to breathe clean air. Reductions in carbon and the associated harmful air pollution from the power sector can improve children’s health. A recent children’s study showed that by lowering harmful pollution from power plants, RGGI has helped to avoid asthma attacks, preterm births, low birth weight, and more. The health benefits were quantified between $191 million and $350 million. In addition, Pennsylvania’s participation in RGGI is critical to achieving the Governor’s greenhouse gas reduction goals.”PennEnvironment:“We applaud Gov. Wolf for his veto of the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s misguided attack on climate solutions. RGGI enjoys the support of a bipartisan group of governors in the region, and this valuable program offers key mechanisms for reducing pollution and fighting climate change. Joining our neighboring states to the north, east and south in this alliance can create a healthier, more vibrant region with clean air that transcends borders,” said PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center’s Executive Director David Masur. “As the Western U.S. suffers through devastating wildfires, the Gulf Coast recovers from another hurricane, and after the Keystone state experienced a sweltering, record-hot summer, many Pennsylvanians are wondering how to fight the climate crisis here at home. Gov. Wolf is providing a bold answer. Given a choice between living in the past with dirty fuels or being on the right side of history, Gov. Wolf is showing he’s ready to protect our communities and future generations across the state.“Still, the passage of House Bill 2025 by the Pennsylvania General Assembly serves as a stark reminder that many politicians are lagging behind the science of climate change and the will of their constituents to solve this existential crisis. It’s high time that politicians in Harrisburg come up with solutions to address climate change instead of continually putting up roadblocks to commonsense action,” Masur said. “PennEnvironment applauds the Environmental Quality Board for giving RGGI the green light and Gov. Wolf for vetoing this rollback of climate protections. We’re confident that the public comment period will show how broad and deep support runs for RGGI and for implementing solutions to address climate change.”PennFuture:“We applaud Gov. Wolf for doing the right thing in vetoing House Bill 2025,” said Rob Altenburg, director of the PennFuture Energy Center. “It’s clear that the governor possesses the legal authority to implement a cap-and-invest carbon reduction program in Pennsylvania, and there’s no good reason for the legislature to attempt to take away that authority. The science is crystal clear: we need immediate and meaningful action to cut our carbon pollution, and implementing a program similar to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is our best chance to accomplish that goal.”Pennsylvania Environmental Council and Environmental Defense Fund:“The Pennsylvania Environmental Council and Environmental Defense Fund commend the Governor for vetoing House Bill 2025 and thank him and his administration for their steadfast leadership to advance pollution limits for power plants. House Bill 2025 would have allowed the General Assembly, through mere inaction, to block any proposal by the Administration to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This includes, but would not have been limited to, draft rulemaking now under consideration for Pennsylvania to link with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)– a market-based platform that has, for over a decade, proven to both reduce emissions and further economic investment and growth.“Despite acknowledgment that climate change presents a very real and immediate threat to Pennsylvania, there has been no action taken by the General Assembly to address it. Over a decade ago, the legislature passed a law requiring recurrent climate change impact assessments and policy recommendations be developed, and time and time again the calls generated through those reports – matched by scientists, businesses, the military, investors and more worldwide – have gone unheeded.“While we encourage legislative engagement on this critical issue, the legislature must commit to action. This includes affirmative steps to reduce emissions, protect communities and public health, help workers, and strategically position Pennsylvania for the inevitable, net-zero energy future. The options and opportunities are there; the days of idleness should be behind us.”Sierra Club:“The RGGI program is truly going to be the most important action Pennsylvania has taken on climate to date, and we applaud Gov. Wolf’s continued leadership in pushing this program forward. According to DEP’s analysis, RGGI will provide thousands of jobs and increase overall economic activity in PA by $1.9 billion by 2030. This is the program we need in a post-COVID economy recovery plan. Thank you Governor Wolf for acting on climate and working to protect future generations,” said Tom Schuster, Pennsylvania Clean Energy Program director for the Sierra Club. “If we do not start acting immediately to reign in climate disrupting pollution, it will be too late. We cannot sacrifice our children’s future in an attempt to support the coal industry, which is dying with or without RGGI. If the legislature wants to play a more productive role, they can start by supporting community transition packages or designating some of the RGGI allowance proceeds to help communities adapt to inevitable change.”Further, a recent letter from a coalition of nearly two dozen businesses expressed their support for Pennsylvania’s participation in RGGI, noting, in part, “RGGI presents one of our most cost-efficient opportunities to accelerate emissions reductions while preserving Pennsylvania’s proud status as an economic powerhouse for the many years to come. We encourage Pennsylvania’s lawmakers and stakeholders to constructively work together to support and swiftly implement the Commonwealth’s participation in this important initiative.” SHARE Email Facebook Twittercenter_img Gov. Wolf: Clean Energy, Business, Faith, Environmental Advocacy Organizations Support Veto of Bill that Ignored Dangers of Climate Changelast_img read more

Diary

first_imgStuttgart, GermanyMarch 5 – 7 1997Eurocargo ’97. Huss-Verlag GmbH, Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 5, D-80807 München, Germany.Fax: +49 89 323 91-416New York, USAMarch 10 – 12 1997Annual Global Forum on Railroad Finance. Information Management Network, 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1505, New York 10036, USA.Fax: +1 212 768 2484e-mail: imnreg@aol.comOkayama, JapanMarch 11 – 13 1997Sanyo Shinkansen 25-year Commemorative International High Speed Conference. Director, High Speed Conference Secretariat, West Japan Railway, 4-24 Shibata 2-chome, Kita-ku, 530 Osaka, Japan.Fax: +81 6376 6025London, Great BritainMarch 12 – 13 1997Competitive Opportunities and Critical Commercial Issues in Pan-European Rail Freight. SMi Ltd,1 New Concordia Wharf, Mill Street, London SE12BB, Great Britain.Fax: +44 171 252 2272Amsterdam, NetherlandsMarch 13 – 14 1997European Rail ’97. Business Seminars International Ltd, Sussex House, High Street, Battle, East Sussex, TN330AL, Great Britain.Fax: +44 1424 773334London, Great BritainMarch 13 – 14 1997Optimising Safety Investment in Emerging Urban Transit Systems. AIC Conferences Ltd, 2nd Floor, 100 Hatton Garden, London EC1N8NX, Great Britain.Fax: +44 171 242 2320Washington DC, USAMarch 18 – 19 1997Opportunities in Railway Restructuring. World Research Group, 12 E 49th Street, 17th Floor, New York NY10017, USA.Fax: +1 212 421 9410e-mail: info@worldrg.comHong KongMarch 18 – 20 1997Asia Rail ’97 and Rail Ops seminars. IIR Ltd, 20/F Siu ON Centre, 188 Lockhart Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong.Fax: +852 2507 5666Paris, FranceMarch 19 1997Euromodal ’97. UIC, 16 Rue Jean Rey, 75015 Paris, France.Fax: +33 1 44 49 20 29Hanoi, VietnamMarch 19 – 21 1997Vietnam Transport Infrastructure Congress ’97. IBC Asia Ltd, 268 Orchard Road, #18-02, Singapore 238856.Fax: +65 733 5087Lille, FranceMarch 20 – 21 1997The Channel Tunnel Experience – Lessons for the Future. CT97 Secretariat, Institution of Electrical Engineers, Savoy Place, London WC2R0BL, Great Britain.Fax: +44 171 240 8830London, Great BritainMarch 20 – 21 1997Second Annual Conference on Electronic Payment Systems in Transport. IBC Technical Services Ltd, Gilmoora House, 57-61 Mortimer Street, London W1N8JX, Great Britain.Fax: +44 171 636 1976Cape Town, South AfricaApril 7 – 11 19976th International Heavy Haul Association conference – Beyond 2000. Danie Van Zijl, Spoornet, Paul Kruger Building, Wolmarans Street, Johannesburg, South Africa 2000.Fax: +27 11 773 2393Hannover, GermanyApril 14 – 19 1997Rail Transport Technology at Hannover Fair ’97. Wolfgang Pech, Deutsche Messe AG, Messegelände, D-30521 Hannover, Germany.Fax: +49 511 89 32694York, Great BritainApril 23 – 24 1997Train Maintenance Tomorrow … and Beyond. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 1 Birdcage Walk, London SW1H9JJ.Fax: +44 171 222 4557Utrecht, NetherlandsApril 23 – 25 1997Rail Tech Holland conference and exhibition. Europoint BV, Johan H J Haarhuis, PO Box 344, 3840 AH Harderwijk, Netherlands.Fax: +31 341 425614Dallas, Texas, USAMay 13 – 15 1997AAR 10th Annual Hazardous Materials Seminar. Cyndi Stone, Association of American Railroads, 50 F Street NW, Room 5003A, Washington DC 20001, USA.Fax: +1 202 639 2204Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaMay 14 – 16 1997Exporail (Asia) 97, and associated conference on Mass Transit Management and seminars on Vehicle & Track Performance. Interfama Brooks Exhibitions Pte Ltd, Forum Place, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL100RN, Great Britain.Fax: +44 1707 275544Conference details from Judy Whitham, Independent Technical Conferences.Fax: +44 1234 841375Seminar details from Rachel Connix, Institution of Civil Engineers.Fax: +44 171 233 1743Buenos Aires, ArgentinaMay 19 – 22 1997Latin Rail ’97. Christian Ernst Suarez, AIC Conferences Chile, Nueva de Lyon 96, Of 405, Santiago, Chile.Fax: +56 2 246 8109København, DenmarkMay 22 – 26 1997High Speed Train exhibition. Secretariat for DSB Jubilee, Sølvgade 40, DK-1349 København K, Denmark.Fax: +45 3315 0400Yangon, MyanmarMay 22 – 26 1997Myanmar Transport Expo ’97. CP Exhibition, Room 1703, 109 Gloucester Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong.Fax: +852 2511 9692e-mail: cpexhbit@hk.super.netLuzern, SwitzerlandMay 26 – 28 1997International congress ’Sustainable top achievements of the railways – long-term solutions’. Projektleitung Jubiläum 1997, SBB, Mittelstrasse 43, CH-3030 Bern, Switzerland.Fax: +41 512 20 40 99Stuttgart, GermanyJune 2 – 6 199752nd UITP World Congress and City Transport 97 exhibition. UITP, Avenue de l’Uruguay 19, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium.Fax: +32 2 660 10 72last_img read more

UK roundup: Towers Watson, pension increase exchange, PPF

first_imgTowers Watson has predicted UK pension funds will look increasingly to de-risk by offering members cash in lieu of inflation-linked increases.The consultancy said 23% of respondents to a UK pension strategy survey said they hoped to undertake a pension increase exchange (PIE) exercise over the next three years, while one-third said they would use a retirement transfer option (RTO) for members yet to retire.Both exercises allow for the transfer of risk away from a defined benefit (DB) fund, with members who agree to a PIE forsaking future inflationary benefit increases in favour of an immediate, one-off increase in benefits.Fiona Matthews, head of implemented settlement solutions at Towers Watson, said an industry-led Code of Practice for such incentive exercises had addressed previous concerns that members did not “fully understand all the factors around PIEs”. “The Code of Good Practice for Incentive Exercises has addressed these concerns with the provision of financial advice to pensioners if the company offer is less valuable than the increases foregone,” she added.“Thus, members’ desires for flexibility can be met at the same time as providing the scheme and the company with the benefit of a reduction in the liabilities.”Matthews also welcomed a greater level of involvement from trustees in agreeing such incentive exercises, noting that a collaborative approach was “more likely to meet joint objectives besides giving members’ choice”.The consultancy also said the potential use of RTOs, allowing for the transfer of the equivalent cash sum DB benefit to a defined contribution (DC) fund, would be taken up by 30% of survey respondents within the next three years.In other news, the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) has estimated that the aggregate deficit among UK DB funds had fallen to just above £60bn (€73bn) at the end of last month, resulting in an average funding ratio of nearly 95%.According to the PPF 7800 Index, the universe’s liabilities increased marginally – by 0.2% – over the course of February, while assets increased by 1.6% over the same period.The average funding ratio, which at the end of February stood at 94.9%, was a marked improvement over the same period in 2013 – the change both a result of a £67bn drop in aggregate liabilities and a nearly £46bn increase in assets under management.last_img read more

Sea Puffin Proves Its Mettle at Horns Rev 1

first_imgSea Puffin 1 has completed transit and push-on trials at the Horns Rev 1 offshore wind farm in Denmark at a significant wave height of 1.5m, demonstrating record low fuel consumption of <100l/h.WindPartner AS, the vessel owner and manager, said it is currently testing Sea Puffin 1 at Ørsted’s Horns Rev 2 offshore wind farm and intends to continue testing it in severe weather conditions and at wave heights of 1.8m.The test at Horns Rev 2 is scheduled to be completed by 16 September, when the 15-meter long daughter craft will be ready to take on contracts and commercial operations.“We are very proud and satisfied to see that the vessel has performed according to our expectations, and especially the clear demonstration of a significant reduction in fuel oil consumption compared to standard CTVs,” said Trygve H. Espeland, Naval Architect and Co-Founder of ESNA, the designer of the vessel.The world’s first daughter craft based on surface-effect-ship (SES) technology commenced two months of sea trials on the two wind farms at the beginning of August.The sea trials, funded through the Carbon Trust’s Offshore Wind Accelerator (OWA) program, are expected to demonstrate that the Sea Puffin 1 can work in an operational wind farm environment in preparation for charter and full commercial operation.WindPartner and ESNA have a long-term cooperation agreement with the ambition to build a series of this vessel type over the next few years.last_img read more

Lure of T20 could deny Windies return to greatness – Gayle

first_imgLACK of concentration, consistency and the lure of fame and fortune of T20 could prevent the West Indies from ever recapturing their glory days.This is the picture Chris Gayle paints of the West Indies, who won their second T20 world title in April, defeating England in a dramatic final in India.Since that time the West Indies have lost consecutive Test series to India and Pakistan. Gayle suggests that this could be an indication of potential fortune of the region’s Test-playing.It will be difficult for West Indies to go back where they were in Test cricket,” said Gayle, who boasts two Test triple-centuries among his 7 214 Test runs.Gayle, one of the best T20 batsmen in the world, said the current players lack the concentration and the consistency to excel at Test cricket.“The structure of modern day cricket is such that it will be difficult to regain those days of glory because of the advent of the shorter format and the interest that it has generated among the youngsters. In longer formats, you need to concentrate more and have that game discipline in order to achieve consistency,” Gayle told Indiaustantimes.com“If you look at our T20 success it is because of the short duration that helps one play their attacking game. So if you ask me about a turnaround, it seems difficult as of now.”Gayle also opined that the money that players can now make playing the shortest form of the game, makes it hard for players to play Test cricket.“You cannot rule out that possibility that Gen Next in the Caribbean will be more inclined to play T20 leagues. If you are a professional cricketer, you would want to have a good career,” said Gayle.“With so many leagues across the globe, one needs to accept it as a reality today. If a guy is a good enough player and can remain fit, one can play in T20 leagues even above 40.” (Sportsmax.com)last_img read more

Tipp set to open defence of Munster title

first_imgThe first match of the provincial competition gets underway at 4 o’clock.Tipp boss Michael Ryan thinks the game at Semple Stadium could be one to savour.His opposite number Kieran Kingston is hoping the conditions will suit his slightly depleted side. Tipp FM’s live coverage of the big match will be brought to you in association with Mulcahy Car Sales, Ardcroney, Nenagh – our build-up gets underway just after 3 o’clock.last_img

Ex-FA chief executive condemns gambling sponsorships in football

first_imgShare StumbleUpon Gambling-related harm APPG outlines 2020 strategy January 23, 2020 Share Submit EFL urges government to rethink gambling sponsorship ban July 3, 2020 The Football Association’s (FA) former chief executive Mark Palios has affirmed his stance to decrease gambling sponsorships in football.Speaking to BBC Radio 4, Palios explained why he refuses to accept gambling sponsorships at Tranmere Rovers, a club he chairs, and how the relationship between football and the betting industry has gone ‘too far’.The ex-FA boss stated: “This (Tranmere) is a family club that’s firmly rooted in the community and from our perspective it’s the wrong thing to do to get associated with the gambling industry. We can’t change the bigger picture in terms of the football industry being involved to the extent it is but from a personal perspective that’s what we do.“Football has to wean itself off the position it is in at the moment – and that’s the best verb I can use. It’s certainly gone too far.”Gambling sponsorships in football has recently become a major topic of debate by spectators, businesses and the government, with a Gambling Act review currently ongoing.Palios added: “I see gambling as something that is pernicious. People get hooked into it and it is a hidden addiction.“You see people stealing from their employers as we’ve seen and it destroys relationships and fundamentally damages family units and family units are a massive part of the community.”Betting brand sponsorships in football has grown year on year with 60% of clubs in England’s top two leagues having partnerships with gambling companies. The English Football League (EFL), which runs the country’s second, third and fourth divisions, also has a major sponsorship agreement with Sky Bet.An EFL spokesman emphasised: “The EFL itself continues to have a successful relationship with Sky Bet who, as a responsible, properly regulated bookmaker, recognise the importance of having the right safeguards in place.”Palios’ statements follows Nigel Huddleston’s appointment as minister for sport, tourism and heritage. The conservative MP, a vocal supporter of last year’s fixed-odds betting terminal (FOBT) maximum stake reduction, has also previously expressed his concerns over the betting industry’s involvement in sport. Related Articles Conservative manifesto brands Gambling Act as analogue November 25, 2019last_img read more

March Madness bracket predictions 1.0: Projecting the Field of 68 for the 2020 NCAA Tournament

first_imgProjected Nos. 13-16 seedsProjected No. 13 seeds: North Texas (C-USA), Stephen F. Austin (Southland), Akron (MAC), Vermont (America East)Projected No. 14 seeds: Wright State (Horizon), UC Irvine (Big West), Colgate (Patriot), New Mexico State (WAC)Projected No. 15 seeds: South Dakota State (Summit), Hofstra (Colonial), Murray State (Ohio Valley), Winthrop (Big South)Projected No. 16 seeds: Montana (Big Sky), Little Rock (Sun Belt), *Siena (MAAC), *Prairie View A&M (SWAC), *Merrimack (Northeast), *Norfolk State (MEAC)*First Four teamsOn the bubble (alphabetically)Alabama (14-11): NET/Pom/KPI: 35/47/45. vs. Q1: 2-6. vs. Q2: 4-4. vs. Q3/4: 8-1Cincinnati (17-8): NET/Pom/KPI: 48/38/24. vs. Q1: 2-5. vs. Q2: 6-0. vs. Q3/4: 8-3Connecticut (14-11): NET/Pom/KPI: 73/63/91. vs. Q1: 0-6. vs. Q2: 3-3. vs. Q3/4: 10-2Memphis (17-8): NET/Pom/KPI: 60/68/49. vs. Q1: 1-3. vs. Q2: 5-2. vs. Q3/4: 11-2Minnesota (12-12): NET/Pom/KPI: 40/31/52. vs. Q1: 4-9. vs. Q2: 2-2. vs. Q3/4: 6-0Mississippi State (16-9): NET/Pom/KPI: 52/48/46. vs. Q1: 2-6. vs. Q2: 3-1. vs. Q3/4: 11-2N.C. State (16-9): NET/Pom/KPI: 61/56/42. vs. Q1: 4-2. vs. Q2: 3-4. vs. Q3/4: 9-2Richmond (19-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 47/52/41. vs. Q1: 2-4. vs. Q2: 2-1. vs. Q3/4: 15-1SMU (18-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 66/75/62. vs. Q1: 2-2. vs. Q2: 2-3. vs. Q3/4: 14-1South Carolina (16-9): NET/Pom/KPI: 64/74/54. vs. Q1: 3-5. vs. Q2: 4-2. vs. Q3/4: 9-2UNCG (19-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 64/52/59. vs. Q1: 2-2. vs. Q2: 2-2. vs. Q3/4: 15-2Utah State (19-7): NET/Pom/KPI: 42/39/60. vs. Q1: 2-4. vs. Q2: 2-2. vs. Q3/4: 15-1VCU (17-8): NET/Pom/KPI: 53/53/57. vs. Q1: 1-5. vs. Q2: 1-2. vs. Q3/4: 15-1 March is a few weeks away and the college basketball madness is percolating, folks. I’ve done NCAA Tournament bracket projections for Sporting News — we call them the Field of 68 — for quite a long time now. How long? Well, when I started it was the Field of 65 and we were called The Sporting News. So, yeah. For a while now.This is our first Field of 68 for the 2019-20 season. I know, I know, most other places have been generating clicks on this topic for a couple months now, but I’m jumping back into the fray now, when there’s a decent amount of information to use for making educated guesses. As always, I’m doing my projections based on where I believe a team should be seeded based on how its resume compares to other teams this season if the season ended yesterday. Because we’re still a long way from Selection Sunday, I’m not as concerned with locations and such; if your team has an 8-seed resume, they’re on the 8-seed line, and it doesn’t matter to me (right now) if your team can play on a Sunday or not (BYU spoiler).MORE: WVU’s lofty seed in bracket preview suggest selection method needs tweakingMy goal is to give you a numbers snapshot for every team, and then maybe a note or two on each squad. And for this first Field of 68, I’m going to give you a little insight on what it was like to sort through this year’s group of tournament-caliber resumes — to try and figure out which teams belong, which ones don’t and how it all sorts out. I’ve been watching college hoops all season, of course, but there’s a big, big difference between just watching college hoops and actually analyzing and sorting 80-something resumes. It was, let’s say, interesting.As always, automatic bids (in parenthesis) go to the team with the fewest conference losses. In case of a tie, the bid is given to the team with the best NET rating.March Madness bracket predictions for 2020 NCAA TournamentProjected No. 1 seedsBaylor (Big 12), Gonzaga (WCC), Kansas, San Diego State (MWC)Baylor (23-1): NET/Pom/KPI: 2/5/2. vs. Q1: 9-0. vs. Q2: 5-1. vs. Q3/4: 9-0Kansas (21-3): NET/Pom/KPI: 4/1/1. vs. Q1: 10-3. vs. Q2: 6-0. vs. Q3/4: 5-0Gonzaga (26-1): NET/Pom/KPI: 3/3/16. vs. Q1: 5-1. vs. Q2: 3-0. vs. Q3/4: 18-0San Diego State (26-0): NET/Pom/KPI: 1/4/10. vs. Q1: 4-0. vs. Q2: 5-0. vs. Q3/4: 16-0Thoughts: These were the top four teams, in this order, when the Selection Committee released its sneak peek of the Top 16 teams on Feb. 8. And all four have done nothing but win since then. This is easy!Projected No. 2 seedsDuke (ACC), Dayton (A10), Maryland (Big Ten), Florida StateDuke (22-3): NET/Pom/KPI: 6/2/3. vs. Q1: 5-1. vs. Q2: 5-1. vs. Q3/4: 12-1Dayton (23-2): NET/Pom/KPI: 5/6/6. vs. Q1: 3-2. vs. Q2: 6-0. vs. Q3/4: 14-0Maryland (21-4): NET/Pom/KPI: 7/8/5. vs. Q1: 7-4. vs. Q2: 5-0. vs. Q3/4: 9-0Florida State (21-4): NET/Pom/KPI: 15/22/8. vs. Q1: 3-3. vs. Q2: 7-1. vs. Q3/4: 11-0Thoughts: The top two No. 2 seeds from the top 16 seeds reveal made their placement easy; neither Duke nor Dayton has lost. But the other two No. 2 seeds? Yikes. West Virginia, by God, has lost three in a row at Oklahoma and Baylor and vs. Kansas. Not bad losses — but still, three in a row. Louisville also fell at Georgia Tech and at Clemson, two ACC clubs floundering around .500. Maryland probably should have been a 2-seed over West Virginia in the reveal, so the Terps get the nod. Florida State jumps up too, despite the loss at Duke.Projected No. 3 seedsLouisville, Villanova, West Virginia, AuburnLouisville (21-5): NET/Pom/KPI: 9/12/12. vs. Q1: 4-3. vs. Q2: 3-2. vs. Q3/4: 14-0Villanova (19-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 16/24/9. vs. Q1: 6-6. vs. Q2: 6-0. vs. Q3/4: 7-0West Virginia (18-7): NET/Pom/KPI: 10/7/14. vs. Q1: 5-6. vs. Q2: 3-1. vs. Q3/4: 10-0Auburn (22-3): NET/Pom/KPI: 25/33/4. vs. Q1: 5-2. vs. Q2: 8-1. vs. Q3/4: 9-0Thoughts: I’m not sold on Villanova’s resume as a 3-seed as compared to the 3-seeds of most years, but the committee placed the Wildcats there and everyone else has lost, so they stay. Louisville and West Virginia don’t fall far because, well, remember what I just said about all the losses? Even Auburn, which had only dropped a pair of games all year, succumbed to the top-16 jinx and lost a surprising game at Missouri, which is under .500 despite now owning wins against four likely at-large teams. But Auburn’s loss was without Issac Okoro, so that badness is mitigated a bit.Projected No. 4 seedsPenn State, Seton Hall (Big East), Oregon, CreightonPenn State (20-5): NET/Pom/KPI: 17/11/17. vs. Q1: 7-3. vs. Q2: 5-2. vs. Q3/4: 8-0Seton Hall (18-7): NET/Pom/KPI: 14/15/7. vs. Q1: 9-6. vs. Q2: 4-1. vs. Q3/4: 5-0Oregon (20-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 22/25/13. vs. Q1: 6-4. vs. Q2: 4-2. vs. Q3/4: 10-0Creighton (19-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 13/18/11. vs. Q1: 7-6. vs. Q2: 5-0. vs. Q3/4: 7-0Thoughts: Penn State wasn’t one of the teams in the top 16 reveal, but all the aforementioned losing by everyone else — and the Nittany Lions winning a lot of games — is the only way to make up for their awful nonconference strength of schedule numbers. The Big East offers tons of Q1 opportunities, and winning more than half of those chances is why Seton Hall and Creighton are here this week.Projected No. 5 seedsButler, Kentucky (SEC), Colorado, Michigan StateButler (19-7): NET/Pom/KPI: 20/27/18. vs. Q1: 8-5. vs. Q2: 5-2. vs. Q3/4: 6-0Michigan State (17-9): NET/Pom/KPI: 12/10/32. vs. Q1: 5-8. vs. Q2: 4-1. vs. Q3/4: 8-0Kentucky (20-5): NET/Pom/KPI: 24/30/22. vs. Q1: 5-3. vs. Q2: 3-1. vs. Q3/4: 12-1Colorado (20-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 11/17/15. vs. Q1: 6-3. vs. Q2: 4-3. vs. Q3/4: 10-0Thoughts: OK, so we’re officially past where the selection committee ranked teams, but there are a couple struggling stragglers we’ll slot here, Michigan State and Butler. Kentucky has, y’know, that home loss to Evansville, but that was a long time ago and the Wildcats are atop the SEC. As you can see, the computers love Colorado.Projected No. 6 seedsIowa, Arizona (Pac-12), Marquette, Ohio StateIowa (18-8): NET/Pom/KPI: 28/22/33. vs. Q1: 7-6. vs. Q2: 4-1. vs. Q3/4: 7-1Arizona (18-7): NET/Pom/KPI: 8/13/21. vs. Q1: 3-5. vs. Q2: 4-1. vs. Q3/4: 11-1Marquette (17-7): NET/Pom/KPI: 19/23/19. vs. Q1: 5-6. vs. Q2: 6-1. vs. Q3/4: 6-0Ohio State (17-8): NET/Pom/KPI: 18/9/25. vs. Q1: 5-6. vs. Q2: 4-2. vs. Q3/4: 8-0Thoughts: We’ve reached the portion of this Field of 68 where I put about 15 flawed-but-not-awful resumes in a jar and started drawing at random. Boom. OK, not really. But that thing I said about the Big East and Q1 opportunities? Yeah, it goes for the Big Ten, too, so it’s not surprising to see one Big East and two Big Ten teams here, along with NET favorite Arizona.Projected No. 7 seedsMichigan, LSU, Houston (AAC), Texas TechMichigan (16-9): NET/Pom/KPI: 26/14/48. vs. Q1: 5-8. vs. Q2: 4-1. vs. Q3/4: 7-0LSU (18-7): NET/Pom/KPI: 29/34/20. vs. Q1: 2-5. vs. Q2: 8-1. vs. Q3/4: 8-1Houston (20-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 27/20/26. vs. Q1: 2-4. vs. Q2: 7-2. vs. Q3/4: 11-0Texas Tech (16-9): NET/Pom/KPI: 21/16/51. vs. Q1: 2-8. vs. Q2: 5-1. vs. Q3/4: 9-0Thoughts: Yeah, maybe this is a bit high for Michigan — but did you see what the Wolverines did to Indiana on Sunday? They had that extended rough patch, but they have nonconference wins against Gonzaga, Creighton and against North Carolina before things went awry for the Heels. Spoiler alert: From here on out, most of the teams you’ll read about beat the teams they should beat and lose to the teams they should lose to, with an aberration or two on either side gumming up the resume-sorting. Aargh.Projected No. 8 seedsBYU, Wisconsin, Rutgers, IllinoisBYU (20-7): NET/Pom/KPI: 23/19/40. vs. Q1: 2-4. vs. Q2: 3-3. vs. Q3/4: 15-0Wisconsin (15-10): NET/Pom/KPI: 31/28/28. vs. Q1: 7-8. vs. Q2: 1-1. vs. Q3/4: 7-1Illinois (15-9): NET/Pom/KPI: 38/32/55. vs. Q1: 5-7. vs. Q2: 2-1. vs. Q3/4: 8-1Rutgers (17-8): NET/Pom/KPI: 30/29/44. vs. Q1: 2-6. vs. Q2: 5-1. vs. Q3/4: 10-1Thoughts: More Big Ten teams. Shocking, eh? Well, the Rutgers thing is kinda shocking. Who thought the New Jersey squad would be tied in the Big Ten standings with Michigan State — everybody’s preseason No. 1 — this late in the season? It has been a minute since BYU was in the tournament, but the Cougars look solid in Mark Pope’s first year.MORE: Big Ten teams facing unprecedented, unparalleled parity in conference playProjected No. 9 seedsOklahoma, Rhode Island, Saint Mary’s, FloridaOklahoma (16-9): NET/Pom/KPI: 47/35/36. vs. Q1: 2-8. vs. Q2: 7-1. vs. Q3/4: 7-0Rhode Island (19-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 32/43/23. vs. Q1: 1-4. vs. Q2: 5-1. vs. Q3/4: 13-1Saint Mary’s (20-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 34/36/39. vs. Q1: 3-3. vs. Q2: 3-1. vs. Q3/4: 14-2Florida (16-9): NET/Pom/KPI: 35/38/37. vs. Q1: 3-6. vs. Q2: 3-3. vs. Q3/4: 10-0Thoughts: Does anyone want to get an at-large spot? The four teams on this line have a combined nine Q1 wins in 30 opportunities and, well, the field has to be filled out, people, and OH NO I JUST REALIZED I’M ONLY ON THE NO. 9 SEED LINE.Projected No. 10 seedsUSC, Xavier, Virginia, Wichita StateUSC (19-7): NET/Pom/KPI: 49/54/30. vs. Q1: 2-6. vs. Q2: 6-0. vs. Q3/4: 11-1Xavier (16-9): NET/Pom/KPI: 39/42/31. vs. Q1: 2-8. vs. Q2: 6-1. vs. Q3/4: 8-0Virginia (17-7): NET/Pom/KPI: 55/52/35. vs. Q1: 3-3. vs. Q2: 4-3. vs. Q3/4: 10-1Wichita State (19-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 46/37/29. vs. Q1: 2-3. vs. Q2: 6-3. vs. Q3/4: 11-0Thoughts: Folks, I honestly don’t know at this point. I know most years past tournament success/failure doesn’t count, but this year it seems like maybe we should just let Virginia in because the Cavaliers are the reigning champs (I kid, I kid). Well, their numbers aren’t as bad as everyone seems to think. They’re not a top-seven seed, but good enough to get into this year’s field at the moment. It helps that they’ve won five of their past six.Projected No. 11 seedsNorthern Iowa (MVC), *Stanford, Indiana, *Arkansas, Arizona StateNorthern Iowa (20-4): NET/Pom/KPI: 40/41/43. vs. Q1: 1-1. vs. Q2: 3-1. vs. Q3/4: 18-2Arizona State (17-8): NET/Pom/KPI: 50/58/27. vs. Q1: 4-6. vs. Q2: 3-2. vs. Q3/4: 10-0Indiana (16-9): NET/Pom/KPI: 63/49/47. vs. Q1: 4-7. vs. Q2: 2-2. vs. Q3/4: 10-0*Arkansas (16-9): NET/Pom/KPI: 48/44/48. vs. Q1: 2-5. vs. Q2: 2-4. vs. Q3/4: 12-0*Stanford (16-9): NET/Pom/KPI: 37/45/58. vs. Q1: 2-5. vs. Q2: 2-3. vs. Q3/4: 12-1Thoughts: We’ll put two of the First Four teams here and two on the 12-seed line. That’s all I feel confident about right now.Projected No. 12 seeds*Purdue, *Georgetown, ETSU (Southern), Yale (Ivy), Liberty (Atlantic Sun)*Purdue (14-12): NET/Pom/KPI: 33/26/56. vs. Q1: 3-9. vs. Q2: 4-1. vs. Q3/4: 7-2*Georgetown (15-10): NET/Pom/KPI: 43/47/34. vs. Q1: 5-9. vs. Q2: 4-1. vs. Q3/4: 6-0Thoughts: I’ve seen Purdue as high as the 9-seed line, but I just don’t get it. They’re barely .500, AND they have a pair of Q3 losses. Oh, and they’re 1-8 away from home in Q1 contests. Georgetown just picked up its best win of the year, at Butler, and this is a good time to pick up best-win-of-the-year Ws.MORE: Ranking most compelling conference races in March towards Madnesslast_img read more

Nelson Youth Soccer Kicks Off 2016 Season

first_imgNelson Youth Soccer House Leagues run until the Association takes the summer off before resuming action in September.Meanwhile, Rep teams have already played the opening tournament of the season in the Okanagan’s Lake Country.Next up is a Rep Tournament in Coeur d’ Alene, Idaho.Nelson hosts its annual Terry Walgren Tournament and Jamboree May 15-16 at the Lakeside Soccer Pitches. The sun broke through the clouds on a spectacular opening day weekend for Nelson Youth Soccer.The association, with more than 950 registered players, kicked off the 2016 with House League action Saturday for all ages.last_img

Warriors wait on Foran

first_imgForan remains questionable for the trip to Perth, still nursing the injury he sustained in the second half of the Warriors’ Round 14 clash with the Gold Coast Titans, with coach Stephen Kearney including Hingano on the bench as cover at this stage.With veteran hooker Issac Luke (shoulder) already a confirmed out, it’s likely Hingano will feature in the final 17 as the back-up rake even if Foran does play, and the 20-year-old told NRL.com that he will be ready to start if required.”My preparation is going to be the same whether I am playing in the halves or at hooker,” Hingano said.”I took being able to start in the halves last week as a moment of opportunity, I definitely got a lot of confidence from it ahead of this weekend.”If I end up in the middle then I’ll have two good halves next to me who I’ll listen to and just play my role.”Meanwhile Kearney gave an update on the progress of both Foran and Luke, while endorsing Hingano as the man for the job at either standoff or hooker.”[Kieran’s] a lot further ahead this week than he was last week, so we are quietly confident,” Kearney said.”[Issac] has pulled up pretty well and obviously after this week we get the opportunity to rest for the bye, so depending on how his rehab goes we anticipate he will be back for the Penrith game [in Round 19].”[Ata] could potentially [play dummy-half], he has played a little bit of time in there before at NRL level and I am sure he can fill in there quite easily.”  Photo: NRL Photos.Kieran Foran remains in some doubt for the Warriors.last_img read more