Is this an accurate review of where schools stood/stand?

Schools That Wanted to Cancel:
Illinois
Northwestern
Rutgers
Wisconsin

Schools That Were on the Fence:
Indiana
Maryland
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Penn State
Purdue

Schools That Wanted to Play:
Iowa
Nebraska
Ohio State

So much for kicking out Nebraska. Is the Big10 really gunna kick out Ohio St, Nebraska, Penn St, etc? No very likely. There isnt really going to be a spring football season and these school understand that. There is little reason to think Covid will b dramatically different in the late winter and early spring (when cold and flu season would typically normally peak)---not to mention its irresponsible to ask kids to play 8 or ten games and then turn around and kick off another 12 game season just a month or two later. That doesnt even address the disadvantage the schools that play football in the spring will be dealing with as their seriously injured players will end up missing part of the spring and all of the fall season. Basically, playing in the spring will end up screwing up two seasons instead of just one.

If you remember Monday Greenstein with the Chicago Trib reported that the 8-6 vote to not play that Brando reported last week wasn’t true according to his source. Brando replied to Greenstein and said it’s always about the sources.

Now if today’s report of Ohio State leading this mutiny is accurate, isn’t 10 games home and home schedule 6 teams?

(08-19-2020 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Is this an accurate review of where schools stood/stand?

Schools That Wanted to Cancel:
Illinois
Northwestern
Rutgers
Wisconsin

Schools That Were on the Fence:
Indiana
Maryland
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Penn State
Purdue

Schools That Wanted to Play:
Iowa
Nebraska
Ohio State

This is such a good post. Think about what the situation is in each of these states here and you’ll get your answer.

PSU and maybe Minn would be on board, but UM is the wild card. It's not worth it if they sit out.

(08-19-2020 10:43 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Is this an accurate review of where schools stood/stand?

Schools That Wanted to Cancel:
Illinois
Northwestern
Rutgers
Wisconsin

Schools That Were on the Fence:
Indiana
Maryland
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Penn State
Purdue

Schools That Wanted to Play:
Iowa
Nebraska
Ohio State

This is such a good post. Think about what the situation is in each of these states here and you’ll get your answer.

Well, the only reason I sought to categorize the B1G programs this way is that it is abundantly clear that there was universal decision made at the time they cancelled. However, the conference was literally split into multiple factions. Thus, how and why did the B1G (Warren) reach the conclusion of postponing the Fall into the Spring?

If an executive decision was made, why not just say so? Why the secrecy and cloudiness of who wanted what? (We know, by now, that the B1G's plan/hope was that everyone would immediately hop on board, that public opinion would be in their corner and that the other P5 conferences would follow along - NONE OF THAT happened, however). Again, it is undeniable that Warren and the B1G Leadership (but I guess whomever pushed through the full cancellation) made a career-defining (and possibly, job-ending) mistake here. Not only was the decision clearly wrong (judging by the backlash of the stakeholders - forget the fans here), but it is clear that the leadership was severely disconnected in how their members think, and what they wanted, as well as how they would respond to such a big and historic decision.

In the end, it shows an inexperienced conference commissioner (Warren) is clearly in over his head, and, unfortunately, is just not the same as his legendary predecessor (Delaney).

(08-19-2020 09:54 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Big 10 thought others would cave. They didn't now they must backtrack

Am I living on entirely different planet? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question - from the comments that I've seen from many quarters, I apparently *am* living on a different planet.)

UNC and Notre Dame (decidedly not Big Ten schools) just went to all-remote instruction after having students on-campus for barely a week. In only a week, UNC went from a 3% positivity rate to an insanely high 14% positivity rate for testing. Is anyone delusional enough to think that they're going to be the only ones? How do schools shutting their entire campuses down point to *more* support for playing football over the coming weeks (outside of preserving revenue over public health)?

These parents that are frothing at the mouth for their kids to play would also be the first ones in line to sue these schools in the event that any of them developed a heart condition or other side effect from getting COVID-19. Why on Earth would I listen to them if I was running a university?

My main disappointment as a Big Ten alum is the exposure of how many deluded Big Ten fans exist out there. I still firmly believe that this will end up being a non-debate within the next few weeks - we can't be emptying out UNC and Notre Dame within a week of students being on-campus and simultaneously think that any conference is going to be playing football this fall (much less the crazy notion of the Big Ten backtracking on its decision).

If people want to criticize the Big Ten for its lack of communication, then that's fair. I actually agree on that point. However, considering where UNC and Notre Dame are right now as the canaries in the coal mine for students on-campus this fall, I'm failing to see how anyone sees the public health evidence that support that the conferences and schools that have postponed football are going to backtrack. In all likelihood, it's going to be the exact opposite where we're not going to see any football games this fall anywhere.

(08-19-2020 10:35 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It is very difficult to respond to this thread with a nonpolitical answer.

Heh - on that point, we actually agree.

(08-19-2020 11:13 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  These parents that are frothing at the mouth for their kids to play would also be the first ones in line to sue these schools in the event that any of them developed a heart condition or other side effect from getting COVID-19. Why on Earth would I listen to them if I was running a university?

My main disappointment as a Big Ten alum is the exposure of how many deluded Big Ten fans exist out there. I still firmly believe that this will end up being a non-debate within the next few weeks - we can't be emptying out UNC and Notre Dame within a week of students being on-campus and simultaneously think that any conference is going to be playing football this fall (much less the crazy notion of the Big Ten backtracking on its decision).

You would listen to them (or at least pretend to listen to them) because they are high-profile university stakeholders who have a big megaphone. Any institution, business or otherwise, listens (or pretends to listen) to its stakeholders.

If the main issue is liability concerns against potential lawsuits, the defenses to that are assumption of the risks, meeting industry standards regarding safety and the likelihood of any loss/settlement and the potential amount of such liability. It is not whether suits will be filed; it is the likelihood and level of loss associated with any such lawsuits. Arguably, the college players (just like pro players in sports currently playing) would be assuming the risks of disease just like they assume the risk of serious injury. If the schools develop and follow a protocol like the pro leagues, and such protocols are fully developed and thought through (like testing and quarantining) to the standard of the industry, the possibility of loss in a lawsuit is minimized. And the schools will presumably be making money this season, which could be used to offset any losses due to settlements.

The pro sports that are playing are making and have made similar cost/benefit analyses; universities and conferences can do the same.

Maybe you're right - everything is going to be canceled within a few weeks. Maybe you're wrong - cases are currently declining nationwide, the pro sports have created various levels of effectiveness with their bubbles and some universities and conferences are going to at least try to have a season. Is it okay if we try or must we all bow down to the hegemony of the Big 10?

(08-19-2020 11:13 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 09:54 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Big 10 thought others would cave. They didn't now they must backtrack

Am I living on entirely different planet? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question - from the comments that I've seen from many quarters, I apparently *am* living on a different planet.)

UNC and Notre Dame (decidedly not Big Ten schools) just went to all-remote instruction after having students on-campus for barely a week. In only a week, UNC went from a 3% positivity rate to an insanely high 14% positivity rate for testing. Is anyone delusional enough to think that they're going to be the only ones? How do schools shutting their entire campuses down point to *more* support for playing football over the coming weeks (outside of preserving revenue over public health)?

These parents that are frothing at the mouth for their kids to play would also be the first ones in line to sue these schools in the event that any of them developed a heart condition or other side effect from getting COVID-19. Why on Earth would I listen to them if I was running a university?

My main disappointment as a Big Ten alum is the exposure of how many deluded Big Ten fans exist out there. I still firmly believe that this will end up being a non-debate within the next few weeks - we can't be emptying out UNC and Notre Dame within a week of students being on-campus and simultaneously think that any conference is going to be playing football this fall (much less the crazy notion of the Big Ten backtracking on its decision).

If people want to criticize the Big Ten for its lack of communication, then that's fair. I actually agree on that point. However, considering where UNC and Notre Dame are right now as the canaries in the coal mine for students on-campus this fall, I'm failing to see how anyone sees the public health evidence that support that the conferences and schools that have postponed football are going to backtrack. In all likelihood, it's going to be the exact opposite where we're not going to see any football games this fall anywhere.

That’s because you went to Illinois. If you lived in Ohio, PA, Michigan, Iowa or Nebraska, you’d realize football is a way of life for those people.

(08-19-2020 10:35 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It is very difficult to respond to this thread with a nonpolitical answer.

Some things in this world are very clear, aren't they?

(08-19-2020 12:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 10:35 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It is very difficult to respond to this thread with a nonpolitical answer.

Some things in this world are very clear, aren't they?

XLance, so what's your stance on UNC sending students home? I'm confused about a lot of things with this virus. If the virus is not so harmful to younger adults, why close the campus?

(08-19-2020 10:29 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 10:08 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  None of this happens if the B1G leadership had been transparent and allowed individual schools to make their own decisions regarding whether or not to play. A few schools felt the risk was too high to play and did not want to pursue a season (which is totally fine). However, to avoid individual backlash and criticism, they also wanted the league to make a universal decision instead and make everyone cancel to avoid being blamed. That is incredibly poor leadership and management of one of the strongest and most prestigious conferences in the country.

Now, there will be long-term and sustained acrimony and hostility between the programs that wanted everything shut down and those that wanted to proceed under the guidelines. The B1G may very well be fractured for years to come, and it all comes down to the B1G leadership failing to accurately and transparently represent each of its individual member schools.

I agree with everything you’re saying. The Commissioner is weak and not the diplomat that Delany was. He clearly made an opinion, took a side, and acted unilaterally on a decision that needed to have a formal vote without taking into consideration the desires of some very influential members of the conference.

The commish isn't weak, he just doesn't have the connection Delany had with the presidents and AD's. You got to remember Delany was commish longer than most of the presidents and AD's presently in the Big Ten so he had years to development and build those relationships. Warren step right into the worse crisis ever for college sports so it's not fair to compare him to Delany.

The B1G presidents acting like they don't know what is going on are being disingenuous IMO and are taking advantage of an opportunity to pass the blame buck onto Warren. Now the whole conference looks like a bunch of nitwits.

(08-19-2020 11:13 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 09:54 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Big 10 thought others would cave. They didn't now they must backtrack

Am I living on entirely different planet? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question - from the comments that I've seen from many quarters, I apparently *am* living on a different planet.)

UNC and Notre Dame (decidedly not Big Ten schools) just went to all-remote instruction after having students on-campus for barely a week. In only a week, UNC went from a 3% positivity rate to an insanely high 14% positivity rate for testing. Is anyone delusional enough to think that they're going to be the only ones? How do schools shutting their entire campuses down point to *more* support for playing football over the coming weeks (outside of preserving revenue over public health)?

These parents that are frothing at the mouth for their kids to play would also be the first ones in line to sue these schools in the event that any of them developed a heart condition or other side effect from getting COVID-19. Why on Earth would I listen to them if I was running a university?

My main disappointment as a Big Ten alum is the exposure of how many deluded Big Ten fans exist out there. I still firmly believe that this will end up being a non-debate within the next few weeks - we can't be emptying out UNC and Notre Dame within a week of students being on-campus and simultaneously think that any conference is going to be playing football this fall (much less the crazy notion of the Big Ten backtracking on its decision).

If people want to criticize the Big Ten for its lack of communication, then that's fair. I actually agree on that point. However, considering where UNC and Notre Dame are right now as the canaries in the coal mine for students on-campus this fall, I'm failing to see how anyone sees the public health evidence that support that the conferences and schools that have postponed football are going to backtrack. In all likelihood, it's going to be the exact opposite where we're not going to see any football games this fall anywhere.

Well the question is whether they should be emptying out those campuses. There was going to be a spike. You shouldn't be shutting down at the first sign of a spike or you should never have opened in the first place. As long as their resources aren't taxed and the number in quarantine doesn't get too high, they should continue.

I have teenage kids. They are pretty responsible, but one is clearly less conservative about it than us. But we know what many of their acquaintances are doing. Even the mayor of Atlanta, who should have known better, had a positive in her house and went all over while her test was being processed (she WAS positive also). That type of irresponsible behavior is how it is spread. I've seen lots of behavior similar to the mayor in kids. Had to briefly quarantine my son because of someone irresponsible like the mayor (he ended up negative). So that absolutely WAS going to happen when colleges open.

But we sent two to college, one living on campus. Its a risk. But its also a very low risk to them. We just emphasize good hygiene and lots of Purell.

My disappointment is that the colleges refuse to even discuss the risk of encouraging large gatherings of fans. All the talk is about the players (maybe they ARE making decisions solely by talking to their lawyers) who are safer in the program than in the general student population.

(08-19-2020 11:47 AM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:13 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  These parents that are frothing at the mouth for their kids to play would also be the first ones in line to sue these schools in the event that any of them developed a heart condition or other side effect from getting COVID-19. Why on Earth would I listen to them if I was running a university?

My main disappointment as a Big Ten alum is the exposure of how many deluded Big Ten fans exist out there. I still firmly believe that this will end up being a non-debate within the next few weeks - we can't be emptying out UNC and Notre Dame within a week of students being on-campus and simultaneously think that any conference is going to be playing football this fall (much less the crazy notion of the Big Ten backtracking on its decision).

You would listen to them (or at least pretend to listen to them) because they are high-profile university stakeholders who have a big megaphone. Any institution, business or otherwise, listens (or pretends to listen) to its stakeholders.

If the main issue is liability concerns against potential lawsuits, the defenses to that are assumption of the risks, meeting industry standards regarding safety and the likelihood of any loss/settlement and the potential amount of such liability. It is not whether suits will be filed; it is the likelihood and level of loss associated with any such lawsuits. Arguably, the college players (just like pro players in sports currently playing) would be assuming the risks of disease just like they assume the risk of serious injury. If the schools develop and follow a protocol like the pro leagues, and such protocols are fully developed and thought through (like testing and quarantining) to the standard of the industry, the possibility of loss in a lawsuit is minimized. And the schools will presumably be making money this season, which could be used to offset any losses due to settlements.

The pro sports that are playing are making and have made similar cost/benefit analyses; universities and conferences can do the same.

Maybe you're right - everything is going to be canceled within a few weeks. Maybe you're wrong - cases are currently declining nationwide, the pro sports have created various levels of effectiveness with their bubbles and some universities and conferences are going to at least try to have a season. Is it okay if we try or must we all bow down to the hegemony of the Big 10?

As myself and others have pointed out, colleges assume a duty of care for their athletes even beyond other students. Examples of this are the presence of medical staff at games and specific trainers available only to athletes.

At the same time, pro athletes have collectively bargained and explicitly agreed to the safety protocols with their respective leagues. That is quite different than a university sending out a waiver of liability form that may not actually be enforceable.

From a practical standpoint, the NBA and NHL bubbles where all teams are playing at a single site have largely been successful because they're incredibly strict far beyond what is possible for college football: they have everyone in one place with no traveling where they know exactly where everyone is at any given time and, if they don't, then they are punished per the terms of their collective bargaining agreement. They have essentially been quarantined in the same place for nearly two months straight.

In contrast, MLB has had multiple outbreaks and their model is a stricter version of what college football would have (with teams traveling within a specific geographic region while having smaller traveling parties). The MLB experience shouldn't give much confidence to how college football would handle this here since they have significantly less control over their players (as the colleges take great pains to state that they are *not* employees), the traveling parties are significantly larger (typically over 100 people taking into account players, coaches, medical staff and other personnel), and the game itself cannot be played with any social distance since it inherently involves players physically grabbing and tackling each other (unlike baseball).

(08-19-2020 12:32 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 12:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 10:35 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It is very difficult to respond to this thread with a nonpolitical answer.

Some things in this world are very clear, aren't they?

XLance, so what's your stance on UNC sending students home? I'm confused about a lot of things with this virus. If the virus is not so harmful to younger adults, why close the campus?

Home?
They just stopped in class instruction for undergraduates.
The people that tested positive are being treated and the students that were exposed and identified by contact tracing have been quarantined.

Quote:As myself and others have pointed out, colleges assume a duty of care for their athletes even beyond other students. Examples of this are the presence of medical staff at games and specific trainers available only to athletes.

At the same time, pro athletes have collectively bargained and explicitly agreed to the safety protocols with their respective leagues. That is quite different than a university sending out a waiver of liability form that may not actually be enforceable.

From a practical standpoint, the NBA and NHL bubbles where all teams are playing at a single site have largely been successful because they're incredibly strict far beyond what is possible for college football: they have everyone in one place with no traveling where they know exactly where everyone is at any given time and, if they don't, then they are punished per the terms of their collective bargaining agreement. They have essentially been quarantined in the same place for nearly two months straight.

In contrast, MLB has had multiple outbreaks and their model is a stricter version of what college football would have (with teams traveling within a specific geographic region while having smaller traveling parties). The MLB experience shouldn't give much confidence to how college football would handle this here since they have significantly less control over their players (as the colleges take great pains to state that they are *not* employees), the traveling parties are significantly larger (typically over 100 people taking into account players, coaches, medical staff and other personnel), and the game itself cannot be played with any social distance since it inherently involves players physically grabbing and tackling each other (unlike baseball).

All good points. But it doesn't necessarily mean that lawsuits are automatically going to be successful - it just means that they might be more likely to be effective. The defenses I mentioned still apply. The fear of lawsuits should not necessarily determine the issue.

TCU's Chancellor Victor Boschini headed the Big12's development of the protocols for the Big12. It includes at least 3 tests per week; automatic quarantines for positive tests, bubbling the players in single dorms on campus, special tests for thing like myocarditis and fewer trips. TCU will only leave Texas twice - to KU and WVa. and can bus to all other away games (and probably KU as well). 6 games at home; 4 on the road. The only airplane trip will be by charter and include only TCU personnel. Players and others will wear masks and socially distance where possible. Players who test positive won't practice or play and won't be tackling and grabbing anyone.

You might be right - the likelihood of a full season seems low. But we're going to start with the Iron Skillet game (for the 100th time) in a little over 3 weeks and see what happens.

The players want to play. The fans want to try. Football was played in 1918-19 and through major wars. Pray for us. We're gonna give it a go.

Kids were not sent "home". On campus instruction ended. That's why I have kid writing a history paper as we speak. There are no grounds to sue Carolina and win for switching to online courses - none. North Carolina is part of the real world when it comes to litigation - not crazy world. Sure some dumb ass can file a suit, but when it is tossed out the judge will reprimand the mouthpiece.

(08-19-2020 12:32 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 12:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 10:35 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It is very difficult to respond to this thread with a nonpolitical answer.

Some things in this world are very clear, aren't they?

XLance, so what's your stance on UNC sending students home? I'm confused about a lot of things with this virus. If the virus is not so harmful to younger adults, why close the campus?

Our Governor isn't as stupid as some Governors and Mayors that transferred sick people into environments where they could infect other populations. We are treating sick people where they are and where there is excellent health care available.

(08-19-2020 11:13 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 09:54 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Big 10 thought others would cave. They didn't now they must backtrack

Am I living on entirely different planet? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question - from the comments that I've seen from many quarters, I apparently *am* living on a different planet.)

UNC and Notre Dame (decidedly not Big Ten schools) just went to all-remote instruction after having students on-campus for barely a week. In only a week, UNC went from a 3% positivity rate to an insanely high 14% positivity rate for testing. Is anyone delusional enough to think that they're going to be the only ones? How do schools shutting their entire campuses down point to *more* support for playing football over the coming weeks (outside of preserving revenue over public health)?

These parents that are frothing at the mouth for their kids to play would also be the first ones in line to sue these schools in the event that any of them developed a heart condition or other side effect from getting COVID-19. Why on Earth would I listen to them if I was running a university?

My main disappointment as a Big Ten alum is the exposure of how many deluded Big Ten fans exist out there. I still firmly believe that this will end up being a non-debate within the next few weeks - we can't be emptying out UNC and Notre Dame within a week of students being on-campus and simultaneously think that any conference is going to be playing football this fall (much less the crazy notion of the Big Ten backtracking on its decision).

If people want to criticize the Big Ten for its lack of communication, then that's fair. I actually agree on that point. However, considering where UNC and Notre Dame are right now as the canaries in the coal mine for students on-campus this fall, I'm failing to see how anyone sees the public health evidence that support that the conferences and schools that have postponed football are going to backtrack. In all likelihood, it's going to be the exact opposite where we're not going to see any football games this fall anywhere.

Frank, there is no doubt that COVID may very well shut down the season. No one can argue otherwise at this point. However, there remains a legitimate argument to as to when the B1G chose to postpone football until the Spring, as well as the communication and conversations that were had leading up to that final decision.

Yes, UNC and Notre Dame have serious issues on-campus right now. However, they, themselves, made that decision to go remote right now (not the ACC, respectively). Neither situation was related to football (it was due to campus parties).

Ultimately, if a school president, its BOT, its AD, its football team, its student-athletes, their families, etc., if they all choose that they want to play, given their respective state's decisions, that should be their right. The fact that it is clear that there was a direct division within the B1G made the choice to decide when they did even look worse. The B1G could have indefinitely suspended practices/activities, and still choose to cancel later (as the SEC, ACC and Big 12). Optically, and especially for future recruits and future student-athletes, this is a bad, bad look (and it could have absolutely been avoided).