Connect with us

Oregon

Statistically speaking: Oregon Ducks tied for least sacks allowed through 8 games by any team since at least 2009

Published

on

Statistically speaking: Oregon Ducks tied for least sacks allowed through 8 games by any team since at least 2009


RUSHING OFFENSE
2013: 273.5 (1st, ninth)
2014: 234.5 (1st, twentieth)
2015: 279.9 (1st, fifth)
2016: 226.4 (2nd, twenty seventh)
2017: 251.0 (2nd, twelfth)
2018: 179.4 (4th, 54th)
2019: 174.9 (2nd, 51st)
2020: 166.7 (seventh, 61st)
2021: 202.4 (4th, twenty fourth)
After Georgia: 140 (ninth, 74th)
After Japanese Washington: 201.5 (third, thirty seventh)
After BYU: 205.0 (third, thirty sixth)
After Washington State: 198.2 (third, twenty ninth)
After Stanford: 228.8 (1st, tenth)
After Arizona: 241.7 (1st, eighth)
After bye: 241.7 (1st, tenth)
After UCLA: 244.6 (1st, fifth)
After Cal: 235.8 (1st, ninth)
Why: Oregon ran for 174 yards and three touchdowns on 40 carries RUSHING DEFENSE
2013: 165.5 (sixth, 66th)
2014: 165.4 (tenth, sixtieth)
2015: 178.8 (sixth, 73rd)
2016: 246.5 (eleventh, 121st)
2017: 128.5 (2nd, twenty fifth)
2018: 144.3 (fifth, forty third)
2019: 108.9 (2nd, thirteenth)
2020: 169.6 (seventh, seventieth)
2021: 144.1 (sixth, 53rd)
After Georgia: 132 (fifth, 71st)
After Japanese Washington: 116 (4th, 53rd)
After BYU: 97.7 (4th, thirty third)
After Washington State: 86.5 (2nd, sixteenth)
After Stanford: 94.6 (2nd, sixteenth)
After Arizona: 98.0 (1st, nineteenth)
After bye: 98.0 (1st, thirteenth)
After UCLA: 110.6 (2nd, nineteenth)
After Cal: 105.8 (1st, fifteenth)
Why: Cal ran for 74 yards on 26 carries NET PUNTING
2013: 38.49 (third, twenty seventh)
2014: 36.40 (eighth, 82nd)
2015: 31.85 (twelfth, 126th)
2016: 34.68 (eleventh, 113th)
2017: 34.35 (eleventh, 123rd)
2018: 36.85 (tenth, 83rd)
2019: 38.50 (seventh, 63rd)
2020: 39.36 (4th, forty ninth)
2021: 37.13 (eleventh, 103rd)
After Georgia: 38.75 (4th, 72nd)
After Japanese Washington: 38.8 (seventh, 81st)
After BYU: 37.43 (seventh, 92nd)
After Washington State: 37.33 (seventh, 94th)
After Stanford: 38.4 (sixth, eightieth)
After Arizona: 37.79 (sixth, eighty fifth)
After bye: 37.79 (seventh, 87th)
After UCLA: 37.75 (seventh, eighty fifth)
After Cal: 37.59 (fifth, eighty fifth)
Why: Andrew Boyle had two punts for 72 yards PASSING OFFENSE
2013: 291.5 (4th, twenty first)
2014: 312.5 (third, tenth)
2015: 258.3 (seventh, thirty sixth)
2016: 265.3 (fifth, thirty first)
2017: 189.9 (tenth, 94th)
2018: 247.8 (seventh, forty ninth)
2019: 258.2 (fifth, forty first)
2020: 248.1 (4th, forty seventh)
2021: 221.3 (seventh, 76th)
After Georgia: 173 (eleventh, 99th)
After Japanese Washington: 257 (eighth, 57th)
After BYU: 247 (eighth, 68th)
After Washington State: 296.8 (third, twenty fourth)
After Stanford: 270.2 (sixth, forty second)
After Arizona: 270.8 (fifth, thirty fifth)
After bye: 270.8 (seventh, forty second)
After UCLA: 272.6 (eighth, thirty sixth)
After Cal: 290.0 (4th, twenty third)
Why: Bo Nix threw for 412 yards PASSING DEFENSE
2013: 204.5 (1st, twenty first)
2014: 264.3 (seventh, 108th)
2015: 306.5 (eleventh, a hundred and twenty fifth)
2016: 271.9 (tenth, 113th)
2017: 240.6 (eighth, 89th)
2018: 241.6 (eighth, 82nd)
2019: 220.1 (2nd, 53rd)
2020: 236.3 (seventh, 66th)
2021: 241.4 (eighth, 88th)
After Georgia: 439 (twelfth, a hundred and thirtieth)
After Japanese Washington: 263 (eleventh, 98th)
After BYU: 277 (twelfth, 114th)
After Washington State: 301.5 (twelfth, a hundred and twenty fifth)
After Stanford: 282.2 (twelfth, 119th)
After Arizona: 275.3 (twelfth, 114th)
After bye: 275.3 (twelfth, 113th)
After UCLA: 273.4 (eleventh, a hundred and fifteenth)
After Cal: 280.2 (eleventh, 119th)
Why: Cal threw for 328 yards KICK RETURNS
2013: 21.69 (fifth, 59th)
2014: 19.69 (eleventh, 92nd)
2015: 25.16 (1st, fifteenth)
2016: 23.67 (1st, sixteenth)
2017: 22.73 (third, twenty ninth)
2018: 20.18 (seventh, seventieth)
2019: 26.28 (2nd, eighth)
2020: 19.23 (eighth, 84th)
2021: 22.53 (sixth, forty fifth)
After Georgia: 9.0 (tenth, 108th)
After Japanese Washington: 14.67 (eleventh, 114th)
After BYU: 15.5 (tenth, 109th)
After Washington State: 15.6 (twelfth, 116th)
After Stanford: 13.0 (twelfth, a hundred and twenty fifth)
After Arizona: 13.0 (twelfth, 126th)
After bye: 13.0 (twelfth, 127th)
After UCLA: 15.08 (eleventh, 123rd)
After Cal: 15.62 (tenth, 122nd)
Why: Kris Hutson had a 22-yard return PASS EFFICIENCY OFFENSE
2013: 164.91 (1st, fifth)
2014: 180.78 (1st, 1st)
2015: 161.86 (2nd, ninth)
2016: 151.57 (2nd, nineteenth)
2017: 143.34 (4th, thirty second)
2018: 142.67 (4th, forty fourth)
2019: 158.11 (third, thirteenth)
2020: 158.76 (1st, 14th)
2021: 138.84 (sixth, 62nd)
After Georgia: 85.22 (twelfth, 122nd)
After Japanese Washington: 141.89 (ninth, 67th)
After BYU: 151.37 (sixth, forty fifth)
After Washington State: 159.24 (sixth, thirty sixth)
After Stanford: 148.64 (sixth, forty fourth)
After Arizona: 150.05 (sixth, thirty ninth)
After bye: 150.05 (fifth, forty first)
After UCLA: 158.71 (4th, seventeenth)
After Cal: 163.15 (third, eleventh)
Why: Nix was 27 of 35 with three touchdowns and two interceptions PASS EFFICIENCY DEFENSE
2013: 105.75 (1st, seventh)
2014: 125.18 (third, 54th)
2015: 139.14 (eighth, ninety fifth)
2016: 143.16 (tenth, 103rd)
2017: 122.85 (fifth, forty eighth)
2018: 124.95 (4th, forty ninth)
2019: 113.69 (2nd, 14th)
2020: 124.02 (third, thirtieth)
2021: 127.01 (fifth, forty first)
After Georgia: 207.50 (twelfth, 129th)
After Japanese Washington: 164.47 (twelfth, 117th)
After BYU: 158.32 (eleventh, 116th)
After Washington State: 155.04 (eleventh, 116th)
After Stanford: 149.80 (eleventh, 111th)
After Arizona: 142.21 (ninth, 98th)
After bye: 142.21 (ninth, a centesimal)
After UCLA: 141.52 (ninth, a centesimal)
After Cal: 141.26 (ninth, a hundred and first)
Why: Jack Plummer was 20 of 33 with a landing and two interceptions and Kai Millner was 8 of 11 with two touchdowns KICK RETURN DEFENSE
2013: 21.65 (ninth, seventieth)
2014: 21.39 (seventh, 72nd)
2015: 22.42 (tenth, 86th)
2016: 20.52 (eighth, 63rd)
2017: 22.14 (sixth, 86th)
2018: 22.68 (ninth, a hundred and fifth)
2019: 24.43 (tenth, 118th)
2020: 21.33 (sixth, 66th)
2021: 23.0 (eighth, 102nd)
After Georgia: 36.0 (twelfth, 127th)
After Japanese Washington: 27.8 (twelfth, 121st)
After BYU: 25.0 (tenth, 112th)
After Washington State: 25.0 (eleventh, 108th)
After Stanford: 24.54 (eleventh, 112th)
After Arizona: 25.57 (eleventh, one hundred and twentieth)
After bye: 25.57 (eleventh, 121st)
After UCLA: 24.59 (tenth, a hundred and fifteenth)
After Cal: 24.59 (tenth, 117th)
Why: Cal didn’t return a kickoff TOTAL OFFENSE
2013: 565.0 (1st, 2nd)
2014: 547.0 (1st, third)
2015: 538.2 (1st, fifth)
2016: 491.7 (2nd, fifteenth)
2017: 440.9 (4th, thirtieth)
2018: 427.2 (third, forty first)
2019: 433.1 (4th, fortieth)
2020: 412.9 (sixth, forty ninth)
2021: 423.6 (fifth, fiftieth)
After Georgia: 313.0 (twelfth, 106th)
After Japanese Washington: 485.5 (sixth, forty sixth)
After BYU: 452.0 (seventh, forty eighth)
After Washington State: 495.0 (third, seventeenth)
After Stanford: 499.0 (third, thirteenth)
After Arizona: 512.5 (1st, fifth)
After bye: 512.5 (1st, eighth)
After UCLA: 517.1 (1st, fifth)
After Cal: 525.8 (1st, third)
Why: Oregon gained 586 yards on 75 performs TOTAL DEFENSE
2013: 370.1 (third, thirty seventh)
2014: 429.7 (eighth, 87th)
2015: 485.3 (twelfth, 116th)
2016: 518.4 (eleventh, 126th)
2017: 369.2 (4th, forty sixth)
2018: 385.9 (sixth, fifty fifth)
2019: 329.1 (2nd, twenty second)
2020: 405.9 (fifth, 62nd)
2021: 385.6 (eighth, 72nd)
After Georgia: 571.0 (twelfth, 129th)
After Japanese Washington: 379.0 (tenth, 77th)
After BYU: 374.7 (tenth, 78th)
After Washington State: 388.0 (ninth, eightieth)
After Stanford: 376.8 (seventh, 73rd)
After Arizona: 373.3 (seventh, 68th)
After bye: 373.3 (fifth, 61st)
After UCLA: 384.0 (seventh, 77th)
After Cal: 386.0 (sixth, 76th)
Why: Cal gained 402 yards on 70 performs PUNT RETURNS
2013: 12.39 (2nd, nineteenth)
2014: 12.48 (third, twelfth)
2015: 12.58 (4th, twenty third)
2016: 7.55 (seventh, 73rd)
2017: 6.44 (eighth, 79th)
2018: 11.95 (1st, twenty ninth)
2019: 14.33 (third, ninth)
2020: 7.0 (seventh, 62nd)
2021: 10.0 (seventh, fortieth)
After Georgia: 0.0 (ninth, 77th)
After Japanese Washington: 8.8 (fifth, forty seventh)
After BYU: 6.17 (eighth, 86th)
After Washington State: 6.17 (seventh, 92nd)
After Stanford: 5.5 (ninth, 99th)
After Arizona: 5.0 (tenth, 109th)
After bye: 5.0 (tenth, 109th)
After UCLA: 5.0 (ninth, a hundred and fifth)
After Cal: 6.18 (eighth, 87th)
Why: Kris Hutson had two returns for 23 yards SCORING OFFENSE
2013: 45.5 (1st, 4th)
2014: 45.4 (1st, 4th)
2015: 43.0 (1st, fifth)
2016: 35.4 (4th, twenty seventh)
2017: 36.0 (third, 18th)
2018: 34.8 (2nd, twenty fifth)
2019: 35.4 (2nd, sixteenth)
2020: 31.3 (4th, forty second)
2021: 31.4 (third, forty second)
After Georgia: 3.0 (twelfth, a hundred and thirtieth)
After Japanese Washington: 36.5 (fifth, fiftieth)
After BYU: 36.5 (fifth, fiftieth)
After Washington State: 39.5 (fifth, twenty fifth)
After Stanford: 40.6 (fifth, sixteenth)
After Arizona: 42.0 (1st, ninth)
After bye: 42.0 (2nd, ninth)
After UCLA: 42.4 (1st, seventh)
After Cal: 42.4 (1st, fifth)
Why: Oregon scored 42 factors SCORING DEFENSE
2013: 20.5 (2nd, thirteenth)
2014: 23.6 (2nd, thirtieth)
2015: 37.5 (twelfth, a hundred and fifteenth)
2016: 41.4 (eleventh, 126th)
2017: 29.0 (eighth, 81st)
2018: 25.4 (sixth, forty eighth)
2019: 16.5 (2nd, ninth)
2020: 28.3 (sixth, 59th)
2021: 27.0 (ninth, seventy fifth)
After Georgia: 49.0 (twelfth, 121st)
After Japanese Washington: 31.5 (eleventh, a centesimal)
After BYU: 27.7 (tenth, eighty fifth)
After Washington State: 31.0 (tenth, 94th)
After Stanford: 30.2 (ninth, 97th)
After Arizona: 28.8 (eighth, 83rd)
After bye: 28.8 (eighth, 81st)
After UCLA: 29.0 (tenth, 87th)
After Cal: 28.4 (eighth, 81st)
Why: Cal scored 24 factors PUNT RETURN DEFENSE
2013: 3.25 (1st, ninth)
2014: 5.75 (third, thirty sixth)
2015: 15.28 (twelfth, 124th)
2016: 7.94 (sixth, 68th)
2017: 6.55 (seventh, 58th)
2018: 7.36 (fifth, 51st)
2019: 7.42 (third, sixty fourth)
2020: 7.44 (4th, seventieth)
2021: 11.07 (tenth, 113th)
After Georgia: 0.0 (2nd, thirteenth)
After Japanese Washington: 0.0 (1st, thirteenth)
After BYU: 0.0 (1st, 14th)
After Washington State: 0.0 (1st, ninth)
After Stanford: 11.0 (ninth, 98th)
After Arizona: 14.67 (eleventh, 118th)
After bye: 14.67 (twelfth, one hundred and twentieth)
After UCLA: 14.67 (twelfth, 122nd)
After Cal: 14.67 (eleventh, 123rd)
Why: Cal didn’t return a punt SACKS ALLOWED
2013: 18 sacks, 1.38 per sport (third, twenty ninth)
2014: 31 sacks, 2.07 per sport (4th, 63rd)
2015: 39 sacks, 3.00 per sport (ninth, 111th)
2016: 29 sacks, 2.42 per sport (tenth, 91st)
2017: 25 sacks, 1.92 per sport (fifth, 54th)
2018: 22 sacks, 1.69 per sport (4th, thirty fifth)
2019: 25, 1.79 per sport (4th, forty ninth)
2020: 11, 1.57 per sport (fifth, twenty ninth)
2021: 24, 1.71 per sport (4th, thirty sixth)
After Georgia: 0, 0 per sport (1st, 1st)
After Japanese Washington: 0, 0 per sport (1st, 1st)
After BYU: 0, 0 per sport (1st, 1st)
After Washington State: 0, 0 per sport (1st, 1st)
After Stanford: 1, 0.2 per sport (1st, 1st)
After Arizona: 1, 0.17 per sport (1st, 1st)
After bye: 1, 0.17 per sport (1st, 1st)
After UCLA: 1, 0.14 per sport (1st, 1st)
After Cal: 1, 0.12 per sport (1st, 1st)
Why: Cal didn’t have a sack SACKS
2013: 28 sacks, 2.15 per sport (seventh, 52nd)
2014: 37 sacks, 2.47 per sport (seventh, thirty eighth)
2015: 38 sacks, 2.92 per sport (2nd, ninth)
2016: 25 sacks, 2.08 per sport (sixth, 61st)
2017: 33 sacks, 2.54 per sport (fifth, twenty eighth)
2018: 29 sacks, 2.23 per sport (seventh, 57th)
2019: 41, 2.93 per sport (1st, sixteenth)
2020: 12, 1.71 per sport (ninth, 91st)
2021: 23, 1.64 per sport (eighth, 104th)
After Georgia: 0, 0 per sport (twelfth, n/a)
After Japanese Washington: 2, 1.0 per sport (ninth, 109th)
After BYU: 3, 1.0 per sport (ninth, one hundred and tenth)
After Washington State: 7, 1.75 per sport (eighth, 82nd)
After Stanford: 10, 2.2 per sport (fifth, fifty fifth)
After Arizona: 12, 2.17 per sport (fifth, sixtieth)
After bye: 12, 2.17 per sport (sixth, sixtieth)
After UCLA: 12, 1.86 per sport (seventh, 83rd)
After Cal: 14, 1.88 per sport (seventh, eighty fifth)
Why: Oregon had two sacks PENALTIES AND TURNOVERS THIRD-DOWN CONVERSIONS
2013: 43.1 % (fifth, forty fifth)
2014: 49.5 % (1st, ninth)
2015: 39.1 % (ninth, 69th)
2016: 39.1 % (seventh, 79th)
2017: 41.0 % (ninth, 56th)
2018: 42.9 % (4th, thirty fourth)
2019: 41.8 % (seventh, forty fourth)
2020: 43.2 % (sixth, forty fourth)
2021: 51.1 (1st, 4th)
After Georgia: 46.7 (sixth, 52nd)
After Japanese Washington: 58.6 (2nd, eleventh)
After BYU: 51.2 (third, twenty third)
After Washington State: 48.1 (fifth, twenty eighth)
After Stanford: 44.4 (fifth, thirty sixth)
After Arizona: 45.9 (sixth, thirty first)
After bye: 45.9 (fifth, thirty second)
After UCLA: 46.5 (fifth, thirtieth)
After Cal: 46.9 (fifth, twenty seventh)
Why: Oregon was 5 of 10 on third down THIRD-DOWN DEFENSE
2013: 40.3 % (tenth, 71st)
2014: 42.3 % (twelfth, 89th)
2015: 42.2 % (seventh, 93rd)
2016: 48.5 % (eleventh, 122nd)
2017: 33.3 % (2nd, twenty fourth)
2018: 37.1 % (fifth, forty fifth)
2019: 33.2 % (2nd, twenty second)
2020: 41.4 % (fifth, seventy fifth)
2021: 46.0 (tenth, 118th)
After Georgia: 90.0 (twelfth, 131st)
After Japanese Washington: 60.9 (twelfth, a hundred and thirtieth)
After BYU: 57.9 (eleventh, 129th)
After Washington State: 54.0 (eleventh, 128th)
After Stanford: 48.5 (eleventh, 126th)
After Arizona: 50.6 (eleventh, 127th)
After bye: 50.6 (eleventh, 129th)
After UCLA: 50.5 (eleventh, 129th)
After Cal: 47.3 (ninth, 126th)
Why: Cal was 4 of 15 on third down TURNOVER MARGIN
2013: plus-10, 0.77 per sport (2nd, seventeenth)
2014: plus-23, 1.53 per sport (1st, 1st)
2015: plus-five, 0.38 per sport (third, thirty fourth)
2016: minus-three, minus-0.25 per sport (tenth, eighty fifth)
2017: even, 0.00 per sport (seventh, sixty fourth)
2018: plus-five, 0.38 per sport (third, thirty fifth)
2019: plus-16, 1.14 per sport (1st, fifth)
2020: minus-9, -1.29 per sport (eleventh, 121st)
2021: plus-9, 0.64 per sport (third, 18th)
After Georgia: minus-2, -2.00 per sport (eleventh, one hundred and tenth)
After Japanese Washington: zero, 0.0 per sport (seventh, 66th)
After BYU: minus-1, -0.33 per sport (tenth, eightieth)
After Washington State: 0, 0.0 per sport (seventh, sixty fourth)
After Stanford: 0, 0.0 per sport (sixth, 59th)
After Arizona: plus-3, 0.5 per sport (fifth, thirty eighth)
After bye: plus-3, 0.5 per sport (fifth, thirty second)
After UCLA: plus-4, 0.57 per sport (fifth, thirty second)
After Cal: plus-4, 0.50 per sport (fifth, thirty first)
Why: Oregon threw two interceptions and had two interceptions RED ZONE OFFENSE
2013: 78.4 % (eleventh, 94th)
2014: 86.3 % (seventh, forty third)
2015: 85.7 % (eighth, 52nd)
2016: 82.4 % (ninth, 79th)
2017: 89.3 % (third, twenty seventh)
2018: 84.3 % (sixth, sixty fourth)
2019: 77.8 % (eleventh, 96th)
2020: 86.7 % (seventh, thirty ninth)
2021: 84.2 % (sixth, 63rd)
After Georgia: 50.0 % (twelfth, 119th)
After Japanese Washington: 90.9 % (4th, forty fifth)
After BYU: 94.4 % (2nd, twenty fourth)
After Washington State: 92.0 % (4th, thirty eighth)
After Stanford: 93.3 % (third, twenty third)
After Arizona: 94.1 % (2nd, sixteenth)
After bye: 94.1 % (1st, thirteenth)
After UCLA: 92.3 % (1st, 18th)
After Cal: 87.0 % (third, forty fifth)
Why: Oregon scored 4 touchdowns on seven crimson zone journeys RED ZONE DEFENSE
2013: 80.4 % (4th, fortieth)
2014: 84.7 % (eighth, 82nd)
2015: 90.9 % (tenth, 116th)
2016: 89.2 % (tenth, a centesimal)
2017: 82.6 % (fifth, sixtieth)
2018: 83.7 % (sixth, 74th)
2019: 76.9 % (2nd, twenty third)
2020: 83.9 % (sixth, sixty fourth)
2021: 86.9 % (tenth, ninety fifth)
After Georgia: one hundred pc (eighth, 79th)
After Japanese Washington: one hundred pc (eleventh, 98th)
After BYU: 91.7 % (eleventh, 107th)
After Washington State: 94.1 % (twelfth, 116th)
After Stanford: 94.7 % (twelfth, 124th)
After Arizona: 87.5 % (ninth, 96th)
After bye: 87.5 % (tenth, 96th)
After UCLA: 85.7 % (tenth, 82nd)
After Cal: 84.4 % (eighth, 74th)
Why: Cal scored two touchdowns and a discipline purpose on 4 crimson zone journeys PENALTY YARDS PER GAME
2013: 70.15 (tenth, 116th)
2014: 72.27 (eighth, a hundred and fifteenth)
2015: 61.00 (tenth, 92nd)
2016: 75.83 (twelfth, 126th)
2017: 88.31 (twelfth, 129th)
2018: 47.92 (4th, forty first)
2019: 61.57 (ninth, 103rd)
2020: 50.86 (sixth, sixtieth)
2021: 64.57 (ninth, 111th)
After Georgia: 35 (4th, twenty second)
After Japanese Washington: 45 (sixth, thirty fourth)
After BYU: 46.0 (fifth, thirty seventh)
After Washington State: 56.25 (sixth, sixty fourth)
After Stanford: 72.0 (eleventh, a hundred and fifteenth)
After Arizona: 69.33 (eleventh, one hundred and tenth)
After bye: 69.33 (eleventh, a hundred and fifteenth)
After UCLA: 66.57 (tenth, 106th)
After Cal: 62.0 (tenth, 98th)
Why: Oregon dedicated 4 penalties for 30 yards



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Oregon

Lawmakers propose requiring salary information in Oregon job listings

Published

on

Lawmakers propose requiring salary information in Oregon job listings


play

  • A law proposed this session would mandate employers to disclose wage and benefit details in job postings.
  • Supporters argue the bill would promote pay equity, particularly for women and minorities.

Oregon Democrats are renewing their effort to pass legislation requiring employers to include wage and benefit information in job listings and aiming to increase pay transparency and equity in the hiring process.

The bill, House Bill 2746, had its first public hearing on Monday and testimony continued Wednesday afternoon.

Advertisement

“This bill is critical for ensuring that Oregon remains an equitable place to live and work,” bill sponsor and Senate Majority Leader Sen. Kayse Jama, D-Portland, said. “Despite our pay equity laws, significant wage gaps for minority communities exist.”

What the bill would require of employers

The bill would require internal or external job postings, and transfer or promotion opportunities, to include wage or wage range information and a general description of benefits and other compensation details. Failing to do so would become an “unlawful practice” that could result in a letter of education or fines up to $10,000 for repeat violations.

The bill establishes a one-year statute of limitations for people to file a complaint with the Bureau of Labor and Industries.

Fourteen other states have introduced similar legislation in recent years. As of 2021, Colorado has required employers to include compensation information in job postings. New York, California, Maryland, Connecticut, Nevada and Rhode Island also have pay transparency laws.

Advertisement

Washington enacted a salary disclosure law in 2022.

Oregon lawmakers last attempted to pass a similar bill in 2023, but the bill died in committee before the session ended. Jama said HB 2746 this legislative session reflected changes and compromises made after discussions with various stakeholders.

Vasu Reddy, director of State Policy for Workplace Justice at the National Women’s Law Center, said the bill would combat gender and racial wage gaps by countering “unintentional biases and structural problems” that can lead to discrimination in previous jobs being carried over to the next.

Reddy said the bill would also help attract top talent to Oregon and ultimately save money and time during job recruitment.

Opponents refer to law as redundant, burdensome

Business associations oppose the measure again this session, saying the bill would disproportionately affect small businesses and that it is redundant with existing state law.

Advertisement

“While the bill may be intended to promote transparency, instead it creates an unnecessary, potentially costly and burdensome state mandate on small businesses,” said Anthony Smith, Oregon director for the National Federation of Independent Business. “There are already significant federal and state standards that explicitly prohibit wage discrimination.”

Smith said members are “nervous” about the idea that getting something wrong on a job listing could lead to penalties of up to $10,000.

Oregon Business and Industry, a statewide business association representing more than 1,600 members, also opposes the measure. Paloma Sparks, executive vice president and general counsel for OBI, said the bill was duplicative of existing law and was an example of the “proliferation” of new employment laws being passed by the Oregon Legislature that have affected the Bureau of Labor and Industries and state businesses.

In an informational meeting on Feb. 24, BOLI Commissioner Christina Stephenson told lawmakers at least 74 laws have been passed in the past decade impacting BOLI’s workload. Only 10 of those policy changes came with resources to enforce those laws, she said.

Sparks also said that in Washington state, the updated law resulted in a new legal “cottage industry” that goes after employers. According to the Seattle Times, one law firm in Washington has filed the majority of more than 250 lawsuits against Washington businesses that may have violated the transparency statute.

Advertisement

Dianne Lugo covers the Oregon Legislature and equity issues. Reach her at dlugo@statesmanjournal.com or on X @DianneLugo





Source link

Continue Reading

Oregon

Oregon (OSAA) 6A boys basketball playoffs, Round 1 scores, recap: Central Catholic opens with big win

Published

on

Oregon (OSAA) 6A boys basketball playoffs, Round 1 scores, recap: Central Catholic opens with big win


Defending Class 6A boys basketball champion Central Catholic continued its title defense Wednesday night by breezing past Tigard 74-42 in the first round of the OSAA state playoffs in Southeast Portland.

Isaac Carr led the third-seeded Rams (18-7) with 17 points, Duke Paschal added 16, and the hosts outscored the Tigers 28-2 in the second quarter to build a 46-11 halftime lead. 

Carter Lockhart came off the bench to hit four 3-pointers and score 14 for Central Catholic, which got to rest its starters in the fourth quarter in anticipation of its second-round game Saturday against Grant.

Colt Ness led Tigard (11-14) with 11 points.

Advertisement

Jalen Atkins led four Bruins scorers in double figures with 26 points and five assists, and Mason Bierbrauer added 19 points and six assists as Barlow (22-3) cruised to the first-round win in Gresham.

Brayden Barron had a double-double with 15 points and 11 rebounds, and Maddyn Cummings chipped in 14 points and five assists. 

RJ Barhoum scored a game-high 32 points, and Andrew Marcoe made a big 3-pointer to end the third quarter that helped the Cavaliers (15-10) to the road win.

Clackamas coach Ryan King praised Marcoe’s defense and called his team’s effort “a great team win for us.” Max Martinov added 14 points, nine rebounds and seven assists, and Sean Baker had 12 points.

Gylan Payne exploded in the second half, scoring 22 of his game-high 28 points after halftime to help the Pioneers (18-6) keep the Apollos (12-13) at bay after building a 36-23 lead through two quarters.

Advertisement

Connor Lemmon scored all 16 of his points in the first half for Oregon City, which is seeking its first quarterfinal berth since 2019. 

Shay Thompson led Sunset with 21 points. Matthew Lohman added 12.

Braxton Long had 25 points on 8-of-13 shooting and dished out 12 assists for the Olympians (21-4), which last advanced to the main tournament site in 1997.

Anthony Best added 20 points and Dukatti Witherspoon had 11 points and nine rebounds for Sprague.

Jeessley Bukeyeneza led the Jaguars (15-10) with 20 points and eight assists, and Islam Muzaffarov added 18 points and 10 rebounds.

Advertisement

The Skyhawks (21-5) jumped out to a 19-5 lead in the first quarter and never looked back in the first-round win in Southwest Beaverton.

Elijah Thompson led four scorers in double figures with 16 points for Southridge, which led 39-19 at halftime. Drew Groenig added 15 points, Keenan Reckamp scored 14, and Alonzo Hoff had 13. 

Peyton Bruner led the Cavemen (11-14) with 13 points, with Jordan Rossetta scoring 12.

Freshman Jonah Munns scored a game-high 26 points, and the Titans (14-11) used a suffocating 2-3 zone to hold the Astros (14-11) to a season low in points.

Tyler Hawkins added 16 points for West Salem, which led by 18 at halftime and 26 after three quarters. The Titans are one win from ending a seven-year absence from the main tournament site.

Advertisement

Brody Rygh scored 10 of his game-high 27 points in the first quarter, helping the Bowmen (21-5) build a 17-6 lead en route to beating the Axe (14-11).

Rygh’s corner 3-pointer at the halftime buzzer pushed the lead back to 11, and Sherwood opened the second half with a 9-0 run to take a 40-20 lead. South Eugene cut the deficit to 10 before the Bowmen fully took control.

Avery Johnson added 14 points and Connor Parry had 12 for Sherwood.

Levi Hawes led South Eugene with 18 points, and Elijah Gabriel scored 15.

The Lions (20-5) pulled away from a 33-25 halftime lead to advance to the second round.

Advertisement

Junior Keion James’ putback of an airball at the buzzer completed the Generals’ fourth-quarter comeback against the Mavericks in Northeast Portland.

Freshman Malik Mason scored nine of his team-high 14 points in the final quarter as Grant (20-6) erased a 46-34 deficit. Classmate Jacob Harper-Grant made four free throws in the final minute to propel the comeback.

Eli Vizconde scored a game-high 18 points for Mountainside (11-14). Rogen Brown added 13.

Pat Kilfoil and Ryan Fraser had 17 points apiece and combined to make five 3-pointers in the second quarter, when the Crusaders (16-10) outscored the visiting Gophers 28-10 to build a 47-28 halftime lead.

Kilfoil added five assists and five rebounds. Isaac Bongen added 15 points for Jesuit, Joe Stimpson had 10 points and nine assists, and Grady Keljo grabbed a team-high nine rebounds.

Advertisement

Khaled Artharee led Gresham (10-15) with 14 points, and Jeremiah Pichon added 11.

Braylon Gaines had a game-high 38 points, Ahshua Neal added 14, and Jaiden Pickett scored 11 as the Hawks (21-5) moved within one win of their first trip to the Chiles Center by defeating the Lakers in Happy Valley.

Robbie Durbin made seven 3-pointers to lead Lake Oswego (9-16) with 24 points. Liam Rigney added 19.

James Kefgen scored 13 of his game-high 24 points in the second quarter as the Wildcats (20-5) built a 36-21 halftime lead en route to the first-round home win.

Jacob Epstein added 10 points, Kai Russell had eight points and six assists, and Dayton Jenkins grabbed eight rebounds for Westview.

Advertisement

Sean McCarty led the Pacers (9-16) with 11 points.

Adrian Montague scored 10 of his 23 points in the decisive third quarter as the Roughriders (20-6), who finished second at the state tournament last year, took down the visiting Black Tornado (14-11).

Roosevelt used an 8-0 run midway through the second quarter to take the lead for good, eventually leading 38-30 at halftime. The hosts opened the third on a 20-2 run to push the lead to 58-32.

Syrius Owens added 22 points and 10 rebounds for Roosevelt. Omar Eno added 16 points, eight rebounds, four steals and three blocks, and Owen Nathan battled foul trouble but still had 13 assists and four steals. 

Easton Curtis made six 3-pointers to lead North Medford with 19 points. Dylan Scott added 13.

Advertisement

Teagan Scott had 30 points and Tko Westbrook added 22 to lead the Saxons (13-12) to a road win against the Southwest Conference champion Irish (20-6).

Nathan Sheley led Sheldon with 12 points, and Rocco Graziano added 10.

Jemai Lake had 32 points, and the Timberwolves (20-5) overcame a career night from Pioneers senior Jacob Brown to reach the second round.

Brown scored a game-high 35 points and Hayden Harding added 12 for Sandy (10-16).

Pat Vialva Jr. had 14 points and Javier Diaz scored 10 for Tualatin.

Advertisement

Saturday, March 8

Barlow High School

Saturday, March 8

Sprague High School

Saturday, March 8

Advertisement

Southridge High School

Saturday, March 8

West Linn High School

Saturday, March 8

Central Catholic High School

Advertisement

Saturday, March 8

Nelson High School

Saturday, March 8

Westview High School

Saturday, March 8

Advertisement

Tualatin High School

To get live updates on your phone — as well as follow your favorite teams and top games — you can download the SBLive Sports app: Download iPhone App | Download Android App



Source link

Continue Reading

Oregon

Umatilla County wants to expand nuclear energy in Eastern Oregon. Tribes are pushing back

Published

on

Umatilla County wants to expand nuclear energy in Eastern Oregon. Tribes are pushing back


The Umatilla County Courthouse in Pendleton, Ore.

Antonio Sierra / OPB

Oregon lawmakers are considering softening a 45-year-old statewide ban to allow nuclear power in Umatilla County. The legislation has the backing of the county government, while tribal leaders are opposed.

House Bill 2410 received its first public hearing in front of the House Committee on Climate, Energy and Environment last week. Oregon voters effectively banned all new nuclear energy facilities in 1980, but the bill would create a carve out so that Umatilla County could start a small modular nuclear reactor pilot project.

Advertisement

State Rep. Bobby Levy, R-Echo, is one of the bill’s chief sponsors, and although the legislation is mostly backed by Republicans, it’s picked up a couple of Democratic supporters. State Rep. Emerson Levy, D-Bend, told the committee why she was backing the bill.

“With AI on our phones, that consumes an incredible amount of energy,” she said, “We need to make sure we have a clean way to address these long term energy needs.”

Testimony poured in from across Oregon and the Northwest, with both supporters and detractors making familiar arguments.

Proponents said small modular nuclear reactors, or SMRs, are a promising piece of technology that would allow utilities to harness a massive amount of reliable, low-carbon energy without the development costs that come with traditional reactors. They argued the smaller size of SMRs negates much of the meltdown risk associated with larger reactors, and waste they produce can be safely stored out of harm’s way. SMRs are being championed by Amazon, which wants to build several in southeastern Washington to power Eastern Oregon data centers.

Opponents of the bill said nuclear waste remains a real threat to public health and the environment, especially because the U.S. still doesn’t have a national repository for spent nuclear material. They added that SMRs are more wishful thinking than a proven technology, with previous projects coming in over budget and underperforming.

Advertisement

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation is one the bill’s opponents. Board of Trustees member Lisa Ganuelas pointed to the Hanford Site in southeast Washington, a former plutonium manufacturing facility that remains heavily polluted decades later.

“CTUIR knows from previous experience that nuclear waste is a burden that will be with us for millennia and unless and until a specific repository is selected, that it is almost certain that any newly generated nuclear waste will stay in Umatilla County and within CTUIR ceded lands indefinitely,” she said.

Cathy Sampson-Kruse, a CTUIR member and a longtime critic of nuclear energy, brought historical pictures of the tribes and said there was a long history of the tribal government not being involved in the decision making process.

“We hear the talk behind closed doors that do not consult us – tribes, treaties and the trust responsibilities,” she said. “It really disheartens us as a people.”

Other locals from Eastern Oregon wrote testimony opposing the bill over environmental and quality of life concerns. Pendleton resident Jennifer Abney name-checked Amazon in her opposition.

Advertisement

“I don’t want a nuclear plant in my backyard, nor Amazon using more of our water … Please listen to the voters,” she wrote. “An oligarch should not be able to bypass the law, nor should the counties.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending