Semi-OT: Big Ten, Pac 12 will not play football in 2020

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Story has been trending all day but I've seen nothing that confirms the Big-10 is canceling football.

Maybe they will but the rhetoric saying it's a done deal is premature.

Scott Frost says Nebraska is playing one-way of another: Frost: Nebraska prepared to play outside Big Ten

I thought they were talking about delaying but not sure if it changed. Other teams have made the same statements and there's been talk about of two super divisions.

Sure, the seniors should say that they won't play? NOT! Your position sounds fine for us outsiders like us.


This is their lives and careers. Few seniors will boycott, after taking 4 years of scholarship money.
In college, for may, this is their most important year. You want them to rely on their junior numbers for the draft.

They definitely should be allowed to take a redshirt and resume play in the fall.
Asking prospects to play two seasons in 10 months after all this talk about player safety is comical.

If you can't see that, that's on you.


*I'm having a blank screen appear every time I try to quote/reply someone*

 

[RASTAN99]

I thought they were talking about delaying but not sure if it changed.

They definitely should be allowed to take a redshirt and resume play in the fall.

All options are still on the table* but the prevailing media rhetoric is summarized in the title of this thread:

"Big Ten, Pac 12 will not play football in 2020"

That's a definitive statement.

As for the redshirt option, etc....depending on the school, scholarships can be very short-term in nature, many if not the majority of which are renewable (or non-renewable) on an annual basis. There will be plenty of football players ready, willing and able to step-up (on a walk-on basis) and fill the spots of the opt-outs.

I'm sure there is some strict language about not penalizing the opt-outs when scholarship renewal (or non-renewal) season comes around, but only the naive would not be cognizant of the multitude of reasons why some of those players who opted out will see their college football careers derailed.

Tough situation.

*Note: Head Coaches at Ohio State, Penn State and Nebraska all squarely against cancelling the season right now (or at all)...those are just the ones I noticed.

 

[venecol]

Michael Ojo was coronavirus positive prior to his death | Eurohoops

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Yes those free $120K college educations, many at the expense of taxpayers, these poor coddled athletes less such difficult lives on campus... ..Such indentured servitude!

More like $300K for some schools like Stanford..

It costs $74,570 a year to go to Stanford—but here's how much students actually pay

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Have the Mac and mountain west canceled as well?

 

[upstater1]

40K might be high but 10K is extremely low imo. At major Universities? With all the $$$ they pay!??

Again college's aren't sending kids home. Sure they'll have some classes online. Let's pretend they have 90% of their classes online. They'll still have a crazy amount of kids on campus doing what they want when no one is looking.

With football you might've had a structure. Playing football wasn't more of a risk. NCAA just never put a proper plan in place. Some teams couldn't afford to keep with Clemson, Bama and were left out to dry. Again they cried about losing $ at the gate as opposed to coming up with a real plan.

NCAA is about as concerned for players health as the NFL is for pros.

At any rate I hope players gain more control. NCAA all but admitted they're useless & incompetent and can't protect their most valuable "students".

1. 10k is the model they were using. I got it from an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association. So you can use ratios instead to determine it. They said 10 of 10,000 will infect the entire student body (practically) if there isn't testing and isolation every 2 days. The article was written with the positive encouragement that campuses SHOULD open with testing for every student every 2 days.

2. The breakdown for how colleges are going about this comes from a survey in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. Over 50% are online. Less than 15% are in person. There are hybrid approaches in between. Without testing, you can expect total campus lockdowns at the live places within the first month. In other words, entire campuses will go totally online. The provisions for such a move are already made, with the expectation that it will probably happen.

3. You still haven't addressed the loss of TV revenues of $50m+. They're going to lose that money. So, I can't get around your logic that they are just concerned about losing $ when their decision to not play is going to cost them a lot of money.

4. The NCAA has nothing to do with this. It's about the Power 5. They are the ones making all of the decisions.

5. The athletes are banding together at a time when universities are experiencing massive deficits, causing them to fire staff and shutter departments. Talk about bad timing. Wow.

 

[XLIX]

What a clusterf*** this whole thing is. Imagine being a Day 1/Day 2 draft prospect looking to have a strong season and move up the boards, but you attend a school not playing. Now you're going to fall behind other players competing with you at that position who are playing. Heck, the same logic applies to a borderline Day 2/Day 3 prospect.

They should allow immediate transfers and immediate eligibility for anyone who wants to play but attends a school not playing. They won't, but they should.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

My son goes to Cornell and they start Sept 2. No sports, of course, but a mix of online and in-person, using larger classroom and auditoriums maximally, to allow spacing for in-person classes.

Everyone arriving from a state with high infection rates has to get tested, be negative, come to NY and self-quarantine for 14 days, check in at Cornell and get tested again, be quarantined by the school for a day awaiting test results, then check into your dorm. Triple rooms have been eliminated, and many doubles were made into singles. Cornell has leased many apartments and made them extra dorms. Everyone on campus will be re-tested, though I am not sure of the frequency.

100% mandatory mask-wearing. 100% prohibition on all parties and gatherings. if you leave Ithaca, you go back into a quarantine.

Ithaca is of course a small town, pretty isolated, and the campus is rather sprawling. If they can't pull it off, you'd think that nobody can. I do have some confidence that they have thought things through pretty well. My son will be a senior and so most of his classes are small & specialized, where in-person is pretty much the only way the profs want to do it.

 

[TinhWoodhead]

can’t they play on their computers?

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

1. 10k is the model they were using. I got it from an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association. So you can use ratios instead to determine it. They said 10 of 10,000 will infect the entire student body (practically) if there isn't testing and isolation every 2 days. The article was written with the positive encouragement that campuses SHOULD open with testing for every student every 2 days.

2. The breakdown for how colleges are going about this comes from a survey in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. Over 50% are online. Less than 15% are in person. There are hybrid approaches in between. Without testing, you can expect total campus lockdowns at the live places within the first month. In other words, entire campuses will go totally online. The provisions for such a move are already made, with the expectation that it will probably happen.

3. You still haven't addressed the loss of TV revenues of $50m+. They're going to lose that money. So, I can't get around your logic that they are just concerned about losing $ when their decision to not play is going to cost them a lot of money.

4. The NCAA has nothing to do with this. It's about the Power 5. They are the ones making all of the decisions.

5. The athletes are banding together at a time when universities are experiencing massive deficits, causing them to fire staff and shutter departments. Talk about bad timing. Wow.

There's no way these schools are only allowing that few students on campus.
When I talk about $ being paid to universities I'm talking about the tuition people are paying and college's are happily accepting.

Sure they'll be online classes but again you're missing the point if you're using that in you're argument imo.
Kids will still be gathering at the libraries, on campus grounds, parties - as we've seen this isn't up for debate, kids will be socializing one way or another.

And again it'll be a lot more than 10K.

Schools aren't worried about players health. They're worried about keeping them as amateurs.

As for the NCAA you're being naive, again, with all due respect. I understand what you mean or think you mean when you bring up the P5 but many other schools crumbled and didn't want to give it a go bc of lack of resources, smaller schools.
Big schools can handle that but a lot of smaller schools couldn't fight this fight and tapped out. The NCAA failed big time when it comes to leadership, guidance & structure.

As for the revenue money they're standing to lose a hell of a lot of more than that. I never said that wasn't a big deal or they didn't care about that. Some schools generate 10+ million, easy, in cash. Just from parking, local spots & events. Local merchandise.

It's an enormous loss, with respect, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. Maybe we got crossed up somewhere?

 

[upstater1]

There's no way these schools are only allowing that few students on campus.
When I talk about $ being paid to universities I'm talking about the tuition people are paying and college's are happily accepting.

Sure they'll be online classes but again you're missing the point if you're using that in you're argument imo.
Kids will still be gathering at the libraries, on campus grounds, parties - as we've seen this isn't up for debate, kids will be socializing one way or another.

And again it'll be a lot more than 10K.

Schools aren't worried about players health. They're worried about keeping them as amateurs.

As for the NCAA you're being naive, again, with all due respect. I understand what you mean or think you mean when you bring up the P5 but many other schools crumbled and didn't want to give it a go bc of lack of resources, smaller schools.
Big schools can handle that but a lot of smaller schools couldn't fight this fight and tapped out. The NCAA failed big time when it comes to leadership, guidance & structure.

As for the revenue money they're standing to lose a hell of a lot of more than that. I never said that wasn't a big deal or they didn't care about that. Some schools generate 10+ million, easy, in cash. Just from parking, local spots & events. Local merchandise.

It's an enormous loss, with respect, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. Maybe we got crossed up somewhere?

We're just going to disagree on this stuff. But clearly a few things are misunderstood.

The 10k # I gave you is the model for determining spread of virus. With 10 sick out of 10k, practically everyone gets infected without testing.

So, I think we're agreeing, not disagreeing.

As for campuses and in person classes, the #s I gave you come from the Chronicle of higher Ed. The majority of schools are 90+% online.

No school is losing $100m+ because of the amateur argument. They are doing it because of ethical considerations. & if you want to be very cynical, it's the near certainty of lawsuits. let's say they don't care about students at all. They are exposing themselves to massive lawsuits. There are no waivers.

I'd also reverse this argument and say, OK, it's political but not in the way most think. Rather, the southern schools have massive pressure from boosters and politicians not to cancel football. If a president tries it, he/she can be fired. It has happened in the past where a president screwed with football (asking them to bear the cost of their massive overexpenditures [Elsa Benitez at Tex A&M]) and was fired. But by cowing to pressure, the presidents put the schools at massive risk (and they don't care because they make $1m salary and they know they'll be fired if they mess with a sacred cow). These are the differences that I see between the various conferences.

I noted this morning that the B12 is pushing back the season by a month. To me, that is a sure sign that they are trying to avoid the booster/alum/political pressure while also not putting students at risk (they are likely expecting campus lockdowns and season cancellation).

 

[mgteich]

[QUOTE="upstater1, post: 5928474, member: 4293".

The 10k # I gave you is the model for determining spread of virus. With 10 sick out of 10k, practically everyone gets infected without testing.

 

[mgteich]

[QUOTE="upstater1, post: 5928474, member: 4293".

The 10k # I gave you is the model for determining spread of virus. With 10 sick out of 10k, practically everyone gets infected without testing.

This presumes US teenage and college behavior. The study presumes mitigation actions. Would you expect a 10K person university in Australia with 10 cases to infect all 10K in a short period of time? Of course not!

Let's use your condition: no testing. Considering that our testing protocols are virtually useless in so manner area, that's Ok. Tests that take a week to process are enxt to useless.

CONDITIONS
1) Students all quarantine in a quarantine dorm for 14 days upon arrival.
2) Students cannot leave campus. If the dorms are not sufficient, then off campus housing will be considered in the quarantee zone.
3) Social distancing measures and masks as the CDC has suggested for months. Large lectures (hundreds plus) are held online.
4) This protocol is repeating after each break.

OBVIOUSLY, using testing would make this all work much easier.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

My biggest question is, if the college NFL season is canceled, but the NFLs Season plays out, what happens with the draft next year?

The draft goes on...

 

[SHOWTIME15]

With no college and presumably no HS games, if the NFL indeed has a season, could we have NFL on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, & Monday? Maybe TV ratings can close the revenue shortfall.

The NFL is interested in hosting Saturday games from what I hear...

 

[upstater1]

This presumes US teenage and college behavior. The study presumes mitigation actions. Would you expect a 10K person university in Australia with 10 cases to infect all 10K in a short period of time? Of course not!

Let's use your condition: no testing. Considering that our testing protocols are virtually useless in so manner area, that's Ok. Tests that take a week to process are enxt to useless.

CONDITIONS
1) Students all quarantine in a quarantine dorm for 14 days upon arrival.
2) Students cannot leave campus. If the dorms are not sufficient, then off campus housing will be considered in the quarantee zone.
3) Social distancing measures and masks as the CDC has suggested for months. Large lectures (hundreds plus) are held online.
4) This protocol is repeating after each break.

OBVIOUSLY, using testing would make this all work much easier.

Australian universities aren't based on campuses. The study presumed an American university with a campus setting. It was done by the AMA. The study did indeed presume mitigation actions, but it specifically stated, campuses across America SHOULD all open--IF the entire student body is subject to testing every 2 days with a quick turnaround--otherwise, we predict near 100% infections.

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

My son goes to Cornell and they start Sept 2. No sports, of course, but a mix of online and in-person, using larger classroom and auditoriums maximally, to allow spacing for in-person classes.

Everyone arriving from a state with high infection rates has to get tested, be negative, come to NY and self-quarantine for 14 days, check in at Cornell and get tested again, be quarantined by the school for a day awaiting test results, then check into your dorm. Triple rooms have been eliminated, and many doubles were made into singles. Cornell has leased many apartments and made them extra dorms. Everyone on campus will be re-tested, though I am not sure of the frequency.

100% mandatory mask-wearing. 100% prohibition on all parties and gatherings. if you leave Ithaca, you go back into a quarantine.

Ithaca is of course a small town, pretty isolated, and the campus is rather sprawling. If they can't pull it off, you'd think that nobody can. I do have some confidence that they have thought things through pretty well. My son will be a senior and so most of his classes are small & specialized, where in-person is pretty much the only way the profs want to do it.

So interesting! Basically, the NBA / NHL bubble model - just spread over the entire Ithica area. I can imagine that as a parent, you're basically persona non grata in terms of visiting your son?

Hopefully it works, but as you mentioned, this approach might only work under certain conditions - smaller student body, more isolated town/campus. The schools in large cities, or those huge state schools that are a major city entirely of their own - probably hard to replicate.

 

[meatface]

If we lived in a country with some real federal leadership this would still have been a real possibility. I would really like to have a regular return to sports but despite what Lou Holtz thinks its not of national importance for a bunch of kids play football.

160,000 americans have died who didnt need to and honestly im willing to forego college football if it means that a few more people wont die.

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

Interesting Power 5 Dynamics going on right now - reportedly:



edit - more tweets:





Based on the last one, the Big 12, ACC and SEC will go ahead (for now), relying on one another to mutually support the choice to do so as reasonable.

It'll be very interesting to see whether any schools break from their conference's decision either by opting out or by attempting to come up with a new schedule on the fly.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

We're just going to disagree on this stuff. But clearly a few things are misunderstood.

The 10k # I gave you is the model for determining spread of virus. With 10 sick out of 10k, practically everyone gets infected without testing.

So, I think we're agreeing, not disagreeing.

As for campuses and in person classes, the #s I gave you come from the Chronicle of higher Ed. The majority of schools are 90+% online.

No school is losing $100m+ because of the amateur argument. They are doing it because of ethical considerations. & if you want to be very cynical, it's the near certainty of lawsuits. let's say they don't care about students at all. They are exposing themselves to massive lawsuits. There are no waivers.

I'd also reverse this argument and say, OK, it's political but not in the way most think. Rather, the southern schools have massive pressure from boosters and politicians not to cancel football. If a president tries it, he/she can be fired. It has happened in the past where a president screwed with football (asking them to bear the cost of their massive overexpenditures [Elsa Benitez at Tex A&M]) and was fired. But by cowing to pressure, the presidents put the schools at massive risk (and they don't care because they make $1m salary and they know they'll be fired if they mess with a sacred cow). These are the differences that I see between the various conferences.

I noted this morning that the B12 is pushing back the season by a month. To me, that is a sure sign that they are trying to avoid the booster/alum/political pressure while also not putting students at risk (they are likely expecting campus lockdowns and season cancellation).

I understand the point of bringing up the model.

Maybe I should have been clearer. When talking about health - Some of the smaller schools were saying they didn't have the resources to test multiple times or as much as needed. Among other complaints.

If they can't properly test a football team there's no way they're keeping up with 40-50K kids on campuses.

I'm not saying they'll let these kids die on the field but yea I'm cynical if someone is saying these guys are worried about their health.

Sure that's part of it, a small part imo. They're much, much more concerned with lawsuits & keeping the amateur status on these kids.

I don't think they'll be ready in the spring but 2 seasons in 8 seasons seems like a labor issues to me? Would any parent really want that more their kid?
I've spoke to several and they all bring up how EVERYONE is freelancing to a degree. There's no decisive voice and that's exactly where the NCAA failed. Sure there's things that aren't in their reach but not much. They could've handled this a lot better. I can't imagine that being up for debate?