The ACC will delay the start of competition for all fall sports until at least Sept. 1

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,521
On the Today Show this morning, they reported the key reason the BigTen changed their mind about playing was better testing protocols. LOL. 🤡
I think David Hale might be talking about more than just testing—the reporting process, practice rules, etc. I also think some people have fallen in love with the word “protocol”, when it seems like it wasn’t the testing protocols that improved, but that faster tests arrived.

The Big10 and Pac12 were more cautious in the early summer. The ACC and SEC were more optimistic. It looks like the truth landed in between, but enough to muddle through a season. It’s still a weird weird season.
 

LibertyTurns

Banned
Messages
6,216
So the Big 10 starts their season the day after the US recorded a record number of cases and the Midwest is the biggest Hotspot. I was sympathetic to their cautious approach, but seems they misplayed this pretty badly.
Yes, they did. Just another reason to keep the politics out of sports. We’ve violated that unwritten rule and I’m not sure we can ever go back now.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
Looks like the BigTen Refs want to shut the season back down by calling targeting after every single tackle until there are no players left. Anybody watching the Ohio State/Nebraska game? What an embarrassment. Even the announcers are incredulous.
 

dmel25

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
478
So the Big 10 starts their season the day after the US recorded a record number of cases and the Midwest is the biggest Hotspot. I was sympathetic to their cautious approach, but seems they misplayed this pretty badly.
This is just speculation on my part, but I really feel like the Big 10 cancelled fall sports thinking they are hot **** and that everyone would follow suit. Then as the ACC, SEC, and Sunbelt decided nah they are playing, and their protocols and testing seem to be working, the Big 10 then decided to back track. They realized they don't have as much pull and looked like clowns trying to be woke so they came up with a plan to play football in the fall.

I still think they should not be eligible for the College Football Playoffs because they are only playing 8 games while everyone else is doing 11.
 

Jacket05

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
688
This is just speculation on my part, but I really feel like the Big 10 cancelled fall sports thinking they are hot **** and that everyone would follow suit. Then as the ACC, SEC, and Sunbelt decided nah they are playing, and their protocols and testing seem to be working, the Big 10 then decided to back track. They realized they don't have as much pull and looked like clowns trying to be woke so they came up with a plan to play football in the fall.

I still think they should not be eligible for the College Football Playoffs because they are only playing 8 games while everyone else is doing 11.
Actually the ACC is the only one with an 11 game schedule. The SEC and big12 have 10 game schedules, big10 has an 8 game schedule, and PAC12 has a 7 game schedule that doesn't start until November 7th. In the group of five conferences AAC, conference USA, and Sunbelt all have eight game conference schedules but are allowing up to four non-conference games.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
Actually the ACC is the only one with an 11 game schedule. The SEC and big12 have 10 game schedules, big10 has an 8 game schedule, and PAC12 has a 7 game schedule that doesn't start until November 7th. In the group of five conferences AAC, conference USA, and Sunbelt all have eight game conference schedules but are allowing up to four non-conference games.

I am fine with Clemson, Notre Dame, Alabama, and Oklahoma State getting in.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
No way, they aren't making it either because I think Florida will beat them, and if they somehow make it to the SEC championship they will just lose to Bama again.

If Alabama beats Georgia in the SEC Championship, then Alabama is in the CFP. You have to pick your poison.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,832
There isn't anything in that article, or that the BigTen has ever stated which explains why they canceled. The best you can get out of them is "it became abundantly clear that there was too much uncertainty regarding potential medical risks to allow our student-athletes to compete this fall."

What medical risks are abundantly clear? They didn't say. And its apparently not 'abundantly clear', because many other conferences disagreed, and shortly thereafter, the BigTen reversed their decision. How can something be abundantly clear, but then abundantly clear in the other direction a few weeks later?
You misquoted. What was abundantly clear was “medical uncertainty.” That was certainly true then. Now there is much less uncertainty, except in the realm of long term complications, where we are still learning.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
You misquoted. What was abundantly clear was “medical uncertainty.” That was certainly true then. Now there is much less uncertainty, except in the realm of long term complications, where we are still learning.

Nothing changed in the 30 days from when they canceled to when they restarted. And that’s why they also didn’t list anything specific upon resumption - they didn’t mention that uncertainty decreased or that they learned anything new. They didn’t give a reason why, which makes sense because they didn’t have a solid reason to not play in the first place. Nothing was misquoted. Nothing was abundantly clear one way and then abundantly clear the other way 30 days later.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,832
Nothing changed in the 30 days from when they canceled to when they restarted. And that’s why they also didn’t list anything specific upon resumption - they didn’t mention that uncertainty decreased or that they learned anything new. They didn’t give a reason why, which makes sense because they didn’t have a solid reason to not play in the first place. Nothing was misquoted. Nothing was abundantly clear one way and then abundantly clear the other way 30 days later.
They never said medical risks were abundantly clear. That is all.

ok for you to disagree with them and even be cynical about their motivation without putting words in their mouth.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
They never said medical risks were abundantly clear. That is all.

ok for you to disagree with them and even be cynical about their motivation without putting words in their mouth.

I didn’t put words on their mouth. I said they had no words in their mouth at all. If they have an explanation somewhere for what changed, you’re welcome to post it or link to it, but I’ve still yet to read anything.

Again, as I quoted above, they said “it became abundantly clear that there was too much uncertainty regarding potential medical risks to allow our student-athletes to compete this fall.”

Nothing changed in the ensuing 30 days that made it abundantly clear the medical risks had changed. Indeed, they didn’t say what had changed either. We can speculate about what that means, but we really don’t need to, as the lack of transparency and information says it all.
 
Top