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

[Milwaukee]

NCAA to drop APR for 2 years LOLOLOLOL.

WE GET FACTORY PRIVILEGES FOR TWO YEARS!! LFG

 

[orientalnc]

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.

Is it possible that the B1G had valid reasons for changing their decision but decided it was not necessary to inform non-members?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Is it possible that the B1G had valid reasons for changing their decision but decided it was not necessary to inform non-members?

I can’t think of a scenario that would make sense, other than they messed up or realized they were given bad info. If there was a legitimate medical discovery in the ensuing 30 days that contradicted their understanding from earlier, you would think they would publicize that to explain why they did what they did and to help others.

 

[MWBATL]

Is it possible that the B1G had valid reasons for changing their decision but decided it was not necessary to inform non-members?

Leadership!!!

You're not saying that's a defensible approach, are you?

That falls squarely into the elite mindset of "you aren't important enough for us to explain it to you peons"...which may in fact be the case, and in which case they ought to be hoisted on their own petard.

 

[orientalnc]

I can’t think of a scenario that would make sense, other than they messed up or realized they were given bad info. If there was a legitimate medical discovery in the ensuing 30 days that contradicted their understanding from earlier, you would think they would publicize that to explain why they did what they did and to help others.

I understand your point, but my question was, "Is it possible... ."

 

[orientalnc]

That falls squarely into the elite mindset of "you aren't important enough for us to explain it to you peons"

My point exactly. But, isn't that actually the case?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I understand your point, but my question was, "Is it possible... ."

Since I can’t think of any possible reasons, I’d have to say no.

BTW, they also didn’t publish any explanation internally either.

 

[orientalnc]

Since I can’t think of any possible reasons, I’d have to say no.

BTW, they also didn’t publish any explanation internally either.

You can accept this as adequate or not. But here is the announcement published in Inside Higher Ed:

Big Ten reverses decision and will play fall football

The Big Ten, a big-time college football conference, reversed its decision to postpone fall sports and will resume football on Oct. 23, citing changed medical evidence and improved testing protocols.

www.insidehighered.com

 

[Deleted member 2897]

You can accept this as adequate or not. But here is the announcement published in Inside Higher Ed:

Big Ten reverses decision and will play fall football

The Big Ten, a big-time college football conference, reversed its decision to postpone fall sports and will resume football on Oct. 23, citing changed medical evidence and improved testing protocols.

www.insidehighered.com

Yep, that pretty much says it all. They made the decision to cancel the season and said the decision “would not be revisited”. But 30 days later they did. This article states “citing changed medical evidence”, but of course they never said what that was. We all know that there has been no changed medical evidence in the last 30 days, 90 days, etc. there has never been any medical evidence that playing football is a likely source of transmission. To this day I dont think we have a single report of it. Students are certainly much more likely to get it from being in dorms, at parties, and so on than playing football. And the risks of negative outcomes are significantly lower than other football related outcomes. Just think of how many of our players have already been to the hospital this year, had concussions, etc. Tariq Carpenter by himself has had 4 different surgeries. Multiple players with broken bones. Nearly 100% of brains studied from football players show CTE. Thankfully a few conferences proved the emperor had no clothes and then they simply had no standing anymore.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I understand the need some on this thread have to bash the B1G. But, not unlike bashing the dawgs we sometimes attribute far more mendacity than actual facts support. The justification may be that it “fits a pattern.” The only fly in the ointment of that reasoning is that in spite of “patterns” each individual case of questionable behavior is still a unique event. We hate the dawgs, we hate the B1G, but not every attribution of evil intent on their part is valid.

Covid 19 is itself a unique event. If you had told me back when the president was predicting 15 cases that we would have closer to 250,000 cases by the end of the year I would have had lots of questions. Likewise if you had told me that during the first spike in the disease that the entire NBA could be kept virus free I would not have believed it.

What we now know is that having a plan and following strict protocols can actually work while resuming a certain level of activity. I suspect that what the B1G learned from watching other football programs is that it is possible to keep close ties on the team and keep everyone safe. Other schools and conferences ran the experiment first, some quite successfully and some with disastrous results. Lots of data points were collected from which the B1G was able to learn. Schools like Alabama, who already kept players under lock and key long before covid, seem to be set up to have good outcomes both on the field and off the field. Other schools maybe not so much.

The only question I have about the B1G decision is how will this play out with winter, more indoor exposure to groups of people and a second wave that looks quite threatening? One day we will see clearly what worked and what didn’t. Meanwhile the B1G decision seems no more suspect than the SEC and ACC decision to plow ahead during the first wave when we had less data to make a decision. It certainly seemed risky at the time. Did they guess right? Was it the money? We can speculate for ever but again we will not know till this season is over who had the best outcomes either on a team level or a conference level.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I understand the need some on this thread have to bash the B1G. But, not unlike bashing the dawgs we sometimes attribute far more mendacity than actual facts support. The justification may be that it “fits a pattern.” The only fly in the ointment of that reasoning is that in spite of “patterns” each individual case of questionable behavior is still a unique event. We hate the dawgs, we hate the B1G, but not every attribution of evil intent on their part is valid.

Covid 19 is itself a unique event. If you had told me back when the president was predicting 15 cases that we would have closer to 250,000 cases by the end of the year I would have had lots of questions. Likewise if you had told me that during the first spike in the disease that the entire NBA could be kept virus free I would not have believed it.

What we now know is that having a plan and following strict protocols can actually work while resuming a certain level of activity. I suspect that what the B1G learned from watching other football programs is that it is possible to keep close ties on the team and keep everyone safe. Other schools and conferences ran the experiment first, some quite successfully and some with disastrous results. Lots of data points were collected from which the B1G was able to learn. Schools like Alabama, who already kept players under lock and key long before covid, seem to be set up to have good outcomes both on the field and off the field. Other schools maybe not so much.

The only question I have about the B1G decision is how will this play out with winter, more indoor exposure to groups of people and a second wave that looks quite threatening? One day we will see clearly what worked and what didn’t. Meanwhile the B1G decision seems no more suspect than the SEC and ACC decision to plow ahead during the first wave when we had less data to make a decision. It certainly seemed risky at the time. Did they guess right? Was it the money? We can speculate for ever but again we will not know till this season is over who had the best outcomes either on a team level or a conference level.

That’s essentially what we’ve been saying. I don’t hate the BigTen. I don’t think they’re evil. They just didn’t make a decision based on the science. Others did. There was enough information across all sports at all levels that playing sports is not a material risk of transmission. The data also shows that for football in particular that football itself is significantly more dangerous than the virus, by orders of magnitude. None of that (risk, testing protocols, etc) has changed in the last 2 weeks or 2 months or more.

 

[MWBATL]

I understand the need some on this thread have to bash the B1G. But, not unlike bashing the dawgs we sometimes attribute far more mendacity than actual facts support. The justification may be that it “fits a pattern.” The only fly in the ointment of that reasoning is that in spite of “patterns” each individual case of questionable behavior is still a unique event. We hate the dawgs, we hate the B1G, but not every attribution of evil intent on their part is valid.

Covid 19 is itself a unique event. If you had told me back when the president was predicting 15 cases that we would have closer to 250,000 cases by the end of the year I would have had lots of questions. Likewise if you had told me that during the first spike in the disease that the entire NBA could be kept virus free I would not have believed it.

What we now know is that having a plan and following strict protocols can actually work while resuming a certain level of activity. I suspect that what the B1G learned from watching other football programs is that it is possible to keep close ties on the team and keep everyone safe. Other schools and conferences ran the experiment first, some quite successfully and some with disastrous results. Lots of data points were collected from which the B1G was able to learn. Schools like Alabama, who already kept players under lock and key long before covid, seem to be set up to have good outcomes both on the field and off the field. Other schools maybe not so much.

The only question I have about the B1G decision is how will this play out with winter, more indoor exposure to groups of people and a second wave that looks quite threatening? One day we will see clearly what worked and what didn’t. Meanwhile the B1G decision seems no more suspect than the SEC and ACC decision to plow ahead during the first wave when we had less data to make a decision. It certainly seemed risky at the time. Did they guess right? Was it the money? We can speculate for ever but again we will not know till this season is over who had the best outcomes either on a team level or a conference level.

I'm going with the money. That usually explains a lot of human behavior.

I don't hate the Big Ten, actually. I do think they allowed politics to conflate with their athletics decision making. (For me, personally, I abhor mixing the two, so it's a hot button for me.) I think when the poltics began to swing a bit, they swung with it. Especially given the ...money. I have long ago come to realize that sex and money run the world, and in these cases sex doesn't seem to be a factor. That leaves only money.

 

[MWBATL]

My point exactly. But, isn't that actually the case?

Ummm, no. I don't accept that I am a mere peon who has no right to have transparency into the decision making process of the leaders of a community. The Big Ten is generally made up of public universities who are paid with peon money (better known as taxpayer dollars). That obligates them to a certain level of transparency in my book.

I am rather surprised by your comment, so maybe I am missing something?

 

[orientalnc]

Ummm, no. I don't accept that I am a mere peon who has no right to have transparency into the decision making process of the leaders of a community. The Big Ten is generally made up of public universities who are paid with peon money (better known as taxpayer dollars). That obligates them to a certain level of transparency in my book.

I am rather surprised by your comment, so maybe I am missing something?

I do not know you, so I would not think of you as a peon. What I indicated in my post, to which you took exception, was that B1G schools did not owe us an explanation beyond what they stated publicly. When public officials make decisions that impact taxpayers, they should explain why that was the right decision. If enough taxpayers disagree they have options for replacing those officials. But, the B1G football programs are not supported by tax dollars. They have a public relations interest in informing their ticket buyers and contributors of decisions that might impact revenues. Nothing more is owed to the general public.

I am not going to repost the article above, but they gave a pretty detailed explanation of why they changed their decision to play football. I know you disagree, but they have no responsibility to satisfy your curiosity. If my post implied you are a peon, please accept my apology. That was not my intention.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

That’s essentially what we’ve been saying. I don’t hate the BigTen. I don’t think they’re evil. They just didn’t make a decision based on the science. Others did. There was enough information across all sports at all levels that playing sports is not a material risk of transmission. The data also shows that for football in particular that football itself is significantly more dangerous than the virus, by orders of magnitude. None of that (risk, testing protocols, etc) has changed in the last 2 weeks or 2 months or more.

I only disagree with one thing you said. “They didn’t make a decision based on the science.” The science has consistently said that the age group to which football players belong are major spreaders of the virus. Some countries, even as they opened up nurseries and elementary schools way before the U.S., kept this age group out of bars and doing their school work on line. Those countries did a better job containing the virus, opening up their economies and having fewer deaths. It seems to me any reasonable person might conclude that keeping teenagers from gathering in groups is a reasonable precaution.

I can understand different people looking at the same facts and coming to different conclusions but to say all of those different conclusions are solely due to political bias is itself a bias.

 

[SimpleGT]

We can speculate, as others have, that they thought they were WAY more important than they really are and the other conferences would blindly follow their magnificent leadership.
Didn’t happen, and there are consequences.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I only disagree with one thing you said. “They didn’t make a decision based on the science.” The science has consistently said that the age group to which football players belong are major spreaders of the virus. Some countries, even as they opened up nurseries and elementary schools way before the U.S., kept this age group out of bars and doing their school work on line. Those countries did a better job containing the virus, opening up their economies and having fewer deaths. It seems to me any reasonable person might conclude that keeping teenagers from gathering in groups is a reasonable precaution.

I can understand different people looking at the same facts and coming to different conclusions but to say all of those different conclusions are solely due to political bias is itself a bias.

I have never said anything about political bias.

There is no evidence that playing football spreads the virus. There is evidence that being in dorms, bars, restaurants, and parties does. If it was a science based decision, they wouldn’t have allowed students back on campus but they did.

 

[WreckinGT]

I still don't know how people are coming to the conclusion that the Big 10 was willing to throw away hundreds of millions of dollars and sacrifice an entire season of sports just to show how important they are. Im not even sure how that makes them look important. Is this just a northerner / southerner hate thing?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I am not going to repost the article above, but they gave a pretty detailed explanation of why they changed their decision to play football.

There was no detail of any significance in that article for why they changed their mind.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I still don't know how people are coming to the conclusion that the Big 10 was willing to throw away hundreds of millions of dollars and sacrifice an entire season of sports just to show how important they are. Im not even sure how that makes them look important. Is this just a northerner / southerner hate thing?

I don’t know where any of that thinking comes from either and it’s a small minority of the opinions I have read.