(Written by kencraw)

(It’s been a busy week. Sorry for the lack of posts.)

Well, the new no-backpack policy received very little backlash on Saturday. Everyone seemed to be prepared for it so there was no rash of heated arguments at the turnstile. There was no protest, even by yours truly. From the AD’s perspective, the roll-out has to be seen as a success.

To some degree, I was prepared for that possibility. My big question was how literally they were going to be in the definition of a backpack. And as I went to look up the exact wording for this post, I saw that it had changed, yet again, as seen in this much more informative article/page. Here’s the relevant text (that is again changed):

A backpack is considered a bag worn on or over your shoulders with the primary compartment carried on the back. It can have one (cross body) or two straps (over shoulders) and have one or more zippered pockets/compartments. Neither adult nor kid-sized backpacks are allowed.

The key change is the ‘primary compartment carried on the back’. That language wasn’t there before. And to be even more helpful, the article/page has a set of pictures of acceptable bags and then another set with unacceptable bags. What’s clear from those pictures is the only “one strap” backpack they’re referring to is type of backpack many bicycle delivery people use, but they’re not referring to handbags/diaper/small duffel bags that also happen to have a long, cross shoulder strap.

Which shows that, as the ongoing conversation the last two weeks more or less concluded, that this was an aesthetic issue/policy, mostly in place to prevent people from freaking out when a shady looking character goes to get a hotdog and leaves his backpack, something that looks like the bag used in Boston, in his seat. But as far as actual security, there’s nothing of note, of whatever weight, that couldn’t be carried in one of the many acceptable bags, that could be carried in one of the unacceptable bags. (Along the same lines, there seemed to be no more additional rigor in which they were searching the bags from the past.)

The other question I had was if they were going to get more picky about the 14″x14″x6″ part. Go measure your backpacks, I’ll tell you right now, NONE of them have a max dimension of 14″. The height of a backpack (i.e. the length of the section that touches your back, is generally 18+”. Was this perhaps an excuse to shrink the size of the bag?

And again, the answer is a resounding no. I saw a ton of bags that wouldn’t fit in a 14″x14″x6″ box. This of course further proves the aesthetic argument.

So the end conclusion for me is that it is still a stupid policy but not as horrific as my first reaction. The biggest impact is I have to go buy a couple of non-backpack bags such as this or this or this, all bags that I can wear “over the shoulder” (to use the old Cal language) and thus keep two hands free for the kids but still can hold as much as a traditional school-sized backpack. Another $20-$30 down the drain to stupidity, and perhaps not quite as comfortable to carry, but there are worse things in life.

One final comment on the subject… the Athletic department has been doing a good job lately of reacting quickly to concerns. The updated article/web page posted Tuesday the 20th (probably late in the day, based on when I posted the relevant text previously on the blog), was a significant improvement over the pages I saw on the 19th when I got the e-mail (although published on the 15th) . The pictures were a big help. I think it’s a good thing that they’re being proactive at addressing concerns. What surprises/concerns me is that you’d think they’d be doing more to preempt these things. If they can re-write the bag policy page one day after announcing the policy via e-mail, adding pictures and more descriptive text, why can’t they spend a few hours BEFORE they announce the policy to anticipate the concerns and get it right the first time? After all, I didn’t see the updated page until today, because I had read the previous version on the 19th and saw no reason to go re-read it.