What happened to make conference like the B1G suddenly pivot toward canceling?

Just last week, the P5 were releasing football schedules, and to my knowledge, NOTHING about the CV19 situation then is substantively different from it is now.

Now of course, on say August 1st it was certainly possible for a P5 to be against playing football. But they ALL were in favor of playing football as they were all releasing schedules. ALL.

So what happened? Did i miss something and did USA cases or deaths suddenly go up 50% *over what they were on August 1st*?

I am mystified.

Politicians told them do so? Pretty simple really.

It’s a head scratcher.
Especially those who delay the season to end of September. But, could be more if the “We are United” issue than Covid.

You have idiots who are not co-operating to help some spreading the virus, and the travel restrictions in place by the northern states.

I don't think there's anything mysterious here. Everybody is hoping that somehow there will be football soon. And, if there will be, they need to have a plan sooner rather than later about who will play, and where and when. Thus, the schedules.

At the same time, everybody is also aware that we might not have football, and that decisions to cancel or postpone could be made at any time up to the (tentative) start dates recently announced.

It isn't that anything has changed (yet) except the passage of time. The tentative schedules always assumed some improvement in the situation would be necessary to play. Every day that passes without seeing that improvement just increases the likelihood of cancellation.

Seriously.

Was it the MAC that started the dominoes? Pretty much every conference (except the MAC) announced their 2020 schedule plans, including specific matchups and dates....JUST LAST WEEK!!

Then, the MAC postpones their season on Saturday...and, suddenly the B1G, PAC, and MWC completely flip just 4 or 5 days after announcing their new 2020 schedules....what?

Of course, the situation is fluid and things can change. But to do a 180 flip just days after announcing your schedule...can it be anything other than politics and poor leadership....

Honestly several players who have had COVID-19 are showing signs of cardiovascular issues after recovery. The fact that there are more long-term potential damages changes the perspective on this being a sickness for a few days into a potential lifetime situation. As these conditions in college athletes have trickled out over the past week or so it gives university legal counsel an additional layer to consider beyond simply spread of infection.

Then there is the general uneasiness of those in leadership of not wanting to be remembered as the ones who made the decision to play in this environment. That can't be discounted as more and more leaders around them head for the exit.

(08-11-2020 11:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What happened to make conference like the B1G suddenly pivot toward canceling?

Just last week, the P5 were releasing football schedules, and to my knowledge, NOTHING about the CV19 situation then is substantively different from it is now.

Now of course, on say August 1st it was certainly possible for a P5 to be against playing football. But they ALL were in favor of playing football as they were all releasing schedules. ALL.

So what happened? Did i miss something and did USA cases or deaths suddenly go up 50% *over what they were on August 1st*?

I am mystified.

College administrators are risk averse. They saw some risks and thought a wave of cancellation would form, largely absolving them from having to make a tough call. The wave started and them collapsed when the SEC--and then the ACC--stood firm. Now the Big10 administrators have to decide give up 400 million in TV revenue when other leagues are not....that makes canceling much much harder.

(08-11-2020 11:37 AM)YNot Wrote:  Seriously.

Was it the MAC that started the dominoes? Pretty much every conference (except the MAC) announced their 2020 schedule plans, including specific matchups and dates....JUST LAST WEEK!!

Then, the MAC postpones their season on Saturday...and, suddenly the B1G, PAC, and MWC completely flip just 4 or 5 days after announcing their new 2020 schedules....what?

Of course, the situation is fluid and things can change. But to do a 180 flip just days after announcing your schedule...can it be anything other than politics and poor leadership....

It is the health crisis we are in that are dictating this. It is getting worst, not better. Since it is getting worse. It is not smart to risk the lives of the players.

(08-11-2020 11:18 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  Politicians told them do so? Pretty simple really.

Probably the main factor. Michigan's governor has been outspoken about shutting things down.

Also read something they listened to a heart specialist. There are some reports that the virus can cause heart damage.

Maybe they had the delusion that they could completely stop the spread of the virus. You hear that from people all over that think that masks and shutdowns will completely eradicate it, ignoring that college students won't follow the rules.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ll-season/

"...According to Pete Thamel of Yahoo Sports, Pac-12 coaches and ADs received an "eye opening" medical perspective from a group of conference doctors on Monday night. Per Thamel, information regarding the heart condition myocarditis, one result of battling the coronavirus, apparently "made it real." Yahoo Sports' Dan Wetzel added that some in the Big Ten have seen that information as well...."

(08-11-2020 11:18 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  Politicians told them do so? Pretty simple really.

I actually don't think it's driven by the politicians, as much as everything around the pandemic has become politicized. Even the supposedly stringent states like Illinois and New York have been allowing pro sports and the opening of public university campuses.

To me, it's actually MUCH simpler and no different than how a corporation with real assets at stake are acting in this environment. These university presidents aren't going to sign-off on going forward unless medical professionals and lawyers sign-off on going forward... and those medical professionals simply aren't signing off on anything, which means that the lawyers aren't going to sign off on it, either.

If a university president directly ignores the advice of both medical and legal professionals, then they are personally f*cked if there is ONE bad case. I can't emphasize this enough. The liability exposure from just ONE bad case is massive and you can multiply that by several factors if they actually ignore medical and legal advice to the contrary... and you're getting into personal liability for those university presidents beyond the liability for the university overall.

I don't care how much politicians might squawk one way or the other - no reasonable president is going to put their professional lives on the line along with opening up their respective universities to unlimited exposure if medical and legal professionals are stating that they should not be playing football or other fall sports in the current situation.

(08-11-2020 11:27 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  You have idiots who are not co-operating to help some spreading the virus, and the travel restrictions in place by the northern states.

But .... all that was happening on August 1st too.

(08-11-2020 11:37 AM)YNot Wrote:  Seriously.

Was it the MAC that started the dominoes? Pretty much every conference (except the MAC) announced their 2020 schedule plans, including specific matchups and dates....JUST LAST WEEK!!

Then, the MAC postpones their season on Saturday...and, suddenly the B1G, PAC, and MWC completely flip just 4 or 5 days after announcing their new 2020 schedules....what?

Of course, the situation is fluid and things can change. But to do a 180 flip just days after announcing your schedule...can it be anything other than politics and poor leadership....

Well for conferences that aren't the P5, there just isn't the money in it and there are a lot of costs with following NCAA mandates on the corona virus. With the MAC they were looking at protocols that called for getting test results within 72 hours of the game and they didn't know that they could guarantee that.

(08-11-2020 11:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 11:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What happened to make conference like the B1G suddenly pivot toward canceling?

Just last week, the P5 were releasing football schedules, and to my knowledge, NOTHING about the CV19 situation then is substantively different from it is now.

Now of course, on say August 1st it was certainly possible for a P5 to be against playing football. But they ALL were in favor of playing football as they were all releasing schedules. ALL.

So what happened? Did i miss something and did USA cases or deaths suddenly go up 50% *over what they were on August 1st*?

I am mystified.

College administrators are risk averse. They saw some risks and thought a wave of cancellation would form, largely absolving them from having to make a tough call. The wave started and them collapsed when the SEC--and then the ACC--stood firm. Now the Big10 administrators have to decide give up 400 million in TV revenue when other leagues are not....that makes canceling much much harder.

But why have the conference officially and very publicly broadcast the new 2020 schedules and medical protocols just last week? Was their NEW information regarding COVID or the situation brought to light just a couple days after making the conference schedule plans? I don't see it.

(08-11-2020 11:53 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 11:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 11:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What happened to make conference like the B1G suddenly pivot toward canceling?

Just last week, the P5 were releasing football schedules, and to my knowledge, NOTHING about the CV19 situation then is substantively different from it is now.

Now of course, on say August 1st it was certainly possible for a P5 to be against playing football. But they ALL were in favor of playing football as they were all releasing schedules. ALL.

So what happened? Did i miss something and did USA cases or deaths suddenly go up 50% *over what they were on August 1st*?

I am mystified.

College administrators are risk averse. They saw some risks and thought a wave of cancellation would form, largely absolving them from having to make a tough call. The wave started and them collapsed when the SEC--and then the ACC--stood firm. Now the Big10 administrators have to decide give up 400 million in TV revenue when other leagues are not....that makes canceling much much harder.

But why have the conference officially and very publicly broadcast the new 2020 schedules and medical protocols just last week? Was their NEW information regarding COVID or the situation brought to light just a couple days after making the conference schedule plans? I don't see it.

The test results are taking two weeks to get an answer.

(08-11-2020 11:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 11:37 AM)YNot Wrote:  Seriously.

Was it the MAC that started the dominoes? Pretty much every conference (except the MAC) announced their 2020 schedule plans, including specific matchups and dates....JUST LAST WEEK!!

Then, the MAC postpones their season on Saturday...and, suddenly the B1G, PAC, and MWC completely flip just 4 or 5 days after announcing their new 2020 schedules....what?

Of course, the situation is fluid and things can change. But to do a 180 flip just days after announcing your schedule...can it be anything other than politics and poor leadership....

Well for conferences that aren't the P5, there just isn't the money in it and there are a lot of costs with following NCAA mandates on the corona virus. With the MAC they were looking at protocols that called for getting test results within 72 hours of the game and they didn't know that they could guarantee that.

I respect the MAC's decision...but, why should the MAC's decision and circumstance affect the B1G, PAC and MWC to suddenly do a complete 180 on the outlook for the 2020 season? The MAC's decision to postpone the season is the only piece of new information between August 5 and August 10.

Were ADs in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois that influenced by the MAC's decision? Or, is it the player association movement? Some new medical development?

(08-11-2020 11:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 11:27 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  You have idiots who are not co-operating to help some spreading the virus, and the travel restrictions in place by the northern states.

But .... all that was happening on August 1st too.

Further to my last post, I believe that they were hoping/wishing/praying for a scenario where the medical advice that they would be receiving by this point would be that, "Yes, we believe that we can play football." They're still not receiving that medical advice. In fact, it might be to the contrary heading in the opposite direction (e.g. bullet's note about heart conditions arising from the coronavirus might mean it's a larger long-term health risk to younger people even if they don't have immediate symptoms).

The conferences, whether you're talking about the Big Ten or SEC, have ALL been waiting as long as possible to make a decision here. The Big Ten might be outwardly more skeptical about playing the college football season than the SEC and we can trot out all of the political tropes about the governors in places like Illinois and Michigan, but rest assured, they weren't going to give up on hundreds of millions of dollars of TV revenue until the LAST POSSIBLE MOMENT any more than the SEC. The leagues (maybe naively or simply with wishful thinking) thought that things could change within a week or two where the risk would be mitigated and it hasn't happened, so now we're at the "Go/No Go" decision point simply because of time.

I really don't think that this is a conspiracy that so many people believe (or want it) to be. My own company (one of the 50 largest companies in the world) gives two craps about what the politicians are stating one way or the other. Our offices are closed until at least October 1st EVERYWHERE, whether they're in California, Texas, Georgia or Illinois. How the Governor of Texas is thinking compared to how the Governor of Illinois is thinking has absolutely ZERO bearing on our decision making. Ultimately, our own medical and legal advice shows that the liability risk is too great to bring back people to our offices, so we're not doing it. Pretty much every other company of our size is doing the same and universities are going to go through the same analysis.

(08-11-2020 11:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 11:18 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  Politicians told them do so? Pretty simple really.

I actually don't think it's driven by the politicians, as much as everything around the pandemic has become politicized. Even the supposedly stringent states like Illinois and New York have been allowing pro sports and the opening of public university campuses.

To me, it's actually MUCH simpler and no different than how a corporation with real assets at stake are acting in this environment. These university presidents aren't going to sign-off on going forward unless medical professionals and lawyers sign-off on going forward... and those medical professionals simply aren't signing off on anything, which means that the lawyers aren't going to sign off on it, either.

If a university president directly ignores the advice of both medical and legal professionals, then they are personally f*cked if there is ONE bad case. I can't emphasize this enough. The liability exposure from just ONE bad case is massive and you can multiply that by several factors if they actually ignore medical and legal advice to the contrary... and you're getting into personal liability for those university presidents beyond the liability for the university overall.

I don't care how much politicians might squawk one way or the other - no reasonable president is going to put their professional lives on the line along with opening up their respective universities to unlimited exposure if medical and legal professionals are stating that they should not be playing football or other fall sports in the current situation.

And exactly how is it that Target and Walmart and every other going concern is not equally as liable? How about all the students and employees that are currently coming to work at universities---arent they just as liable for those folks? This is a pandemic---an act of God. As long as they are taking reasonable precautions then there is really no more liability than there is with anything else. The standard of liability has always been the "reasonable man" standard. Did they take reasonable precautions given the situation? Looking at the set of protocols the P5 have set, which are much much higher than those being utilized by almost any going commercial concern, its hard to argue they have not taken reasonable precautions.

Not to mention, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to prove they definitively contracted Covid from a football game and not from somewhere else. I dont know how you do that. Then there is the hurdle of shared liability. The players are adults and can hardly claim ignorance of the existence of the pandemic--so there is certainly some shared liability. Thus, unless there is some situation where virtually no Covid precautions were taken, any Covid suit is likely to be a complete crap shoot with a very low hit rate. I dont think law firms are going to be rushing into these suits given all the hurdles and the less than certain outcomes.

(08-11-2020 12:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 11:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 11:27 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  You have idiots who are not co-operating to help some spreading the virus, and the travel restrictions in place by the northern states.

But .... all that was happening on August 1st too.

Further to my last post, I believe that they were hoping/wishing/praying for a scenario where the medical advice that they would be receiving by this point would be that, "Yes, we believe that we can play football." They're still not receiving that medical advice. In fact, it might be to the contrary heading in the opposite direction (e.g. bullet's note about heart conditions arising from the coronavirus might mean it's a larger long-term health risk to younger people even if they don't have immediate symptoms).

The conferences, whether you're talking about the Big Ten or SEC, have ALL been waiting as long as possible to make a decision here. The Big Ten might be outwardly more skeptical about playing the college football season than the SEC and we can trot out all of the political tropes about the governors in places like Illinois and Michigan, but rest assured, they weren't going to give up on hundreds of millions of dollars of TV revenue until the LAST POSSIBLE MOMENT any more than the SEC. The leagues (maybe naively or simply with wishful thinking) thought that things could change within a week or two where the risk would be mitigated and it hasn't happened, so now we're at the "Go/No Go" decision point simply because of time.

I really don't think that this is a conspiracy that so many people believe (or want it) to be. My own company (one of the 50 largest companies in the world) gives two craps about what the politicians are stating one way or the other. Our offices are closed until at least October 1st EVERYWHERE, whether they're in California, Texas, Georgia or Illinois. How the Governor of Texas is thinking compared to how the Governor of Illinois is thinking has absolutely ZERO bearing on our decision making. Ultimately, our own medical and legal advice shows that the liability risk is too great to bring back people to our offices, so we're not doing it. Pretty much every other company of our size is doing the same and universities are going to go through the same analysis.

I agree companies don't consider governors. But schools are governmental entities dependent on governmental subsidies. My spouse's company had a very few essential workers there the whole time. On July 1, she was allowed to go back two days a week. Often she is the only one on her floor. Large numbers of people aren't going back before 2021 and some may work remotely indefinitely.

(08-11-2020 12:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 11:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 11:18 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  Politicians told them do so? Pretty simple really.

I actually don't think it's driven by the politicians, as much as everything around the pandemic has become politicized. Even the supposedly stringent states like Illinois and New York have been allowing pro sports and the opening of public university campuses.

To me, it's actually MUCH simpler and no different than how a corporation with real assets at stake are acting in this environment. These university presidents aren't going to sign-off on going forward unless medical professionals and lawyers sign-off on going forward... and those medical professionals simply aren't signing off on anything, which means that the lawyers aren't going to sign off on it, either.

If a university president directly ignores the advice of both medical and legal professionals, then they are personally f*cked if there is ONE bad case. I can't emphasize this enough. The liability exposure from just ONE bad case is massive and you can multiply that by several factors if they actually ignore medical and legal advice to the contrary... and you're getting into personal liability for those university presidents beyond the liability for the university overall.

I don't care how much politicians might squawk one way or the other - no reasonable president is going to put their professional lives on the line along with opening up their respective universities to unlimited exposure if medical and legal professionals are stating that they should not be playing football or other fall sports in the current situation.

And exactly how is it that Target and Walmart and every other going concern is not equally as liable? How about all the students and employees that are currently coming to work at universities---arent they just as liable for those folks? This is a pandemic---and act of God. As long as they are taking reasonable precautions then there is really no more liabity than there is with anything else. The standard of liabilty has always been the "reasonable man" standard. Did they take reasonable precautions given the situation. Looking at the set of protocols the P5 have set, which are uch much higher than those being used by almost any going concern is currently utilizing, its hard to argue they have not. Not to mention, the burden of proof lies with the platiff to prove they definitively contracted Covid from a football game and somewhere else.

Target and Walmart could certainly be liable, but they have their own risk profiles where they can state if they have social distancing, wearing of mask at all times and all risk mitigation factors then their potential liability exposure doesn't outweigh a complete shutdown of their businesses.

To the extent that a "reasonable person" standard applies, the problem for the universities is that if medical professionals are directly stating that it is not safe to play football, then it's NOT reasonable for a university president to act to the contrary. It is quite established that a reasonable person would follow medical advice with respect to a medical issue, so it's caveat emptor if you ignore it.

Also, I know that you have argued that a strict causation standard for the burden of proof is supposed to give comfort here, but rest assured, there is no university attorney that is going to want to sit in front of a jury attempting to defend a university president that directly ignored medical advice (and such advice is probably easily found through a cursory FOIA search).

This isn't about the causation - it's about the IGNORING medical advice that created an environment that recklessly endangered students. That is a horrible set of facts for any defendant. You can't use a "reasonable person" argument if medical experts are directly stating the opposite.