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

[Northeast Stinger]

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.

Correct, it was someone else agreeing with you who said they didn’t like mixing politics into the decision of whether to reopen or not, that it “pushed their buttons.” I took this to be a general theme that the B1G was being motivated by things other than science. Certainly opening just for the sake of revenue, for instance, would be a political decision rather than a decision based on health concerns.

I also may have been mistaken in my understanding that you thought the ACC was being motivated more by the science. I now see from your statements that the ACC was not motivated by science either.

All of this raises a fascinating question which I have to thank you for raising. Should teams have played with no students on campus? I honestly had not thought of that as an option. On the one hand it would fit the science and keep the community safer. On the other hand, it might raise further questions about the “student” part of student athlete and whether this was just football for the sake of football.

Presumably the players could go to class on line but it would be an odd look to say that campus is just for football players and nobody else. It might reinforce the image of football factories over academic institutions.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Correct, it was someone else agreeing with you who said they didn’t like mixing politics into the decision of whether to reopen or not, that it “pushed their buttons.” I took this to be a general theme that the B1G was being motivated by things other than science. Certainly opening just for the sake of revenue, for instance, would be a political decision rather than a decision based on health concerns.

I also may have been mistaken in my understanding that you thought the ACC was being motivated more by the science. I now see from your statements that the ACC was not motivated by science either.

All of this raises a fascinating question which I have to thank you for raising. Should teams have played with no students on campus? I honestly had not thought of that as an option. On the one hand it would fit the science and keep the community safer. On the other hand, it might raise further questions about the “student” part of student athlete and whether this was just football for the sake of football.

Presumably the players could go to class on line but it would be an odd look to say that campus is just for football players and nobody else. It might reinforce the image of football factories over academic institutions.

Not sure why you think that the ACC wasn’t being led by science or that something I said implied that - care to expand?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Not sure why you think that the ACC wasn’t being led by science or that something I said implied that - care to expand?

Simply that if you were concerned about the science you would not open dorms.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Simply that if you were concerned about the science you would not open dorms.

This thread is around whether or not to have football being played.

The dorm, social activities, cafeteria, party side-thread simply disproves the notion that the BigTen was worried about the safety of the football team. If that were true (they cared about the safety of their football players and that was why they wanted to cancel football), they wouldn't have allowed students back on campus, while canceling an activity that has never shown to be a source of transmission.

If you stop there, you're only getting half the story. Continuing on, young people have a significantly lower negative health outcome via COVID from any other age group. The mortality rate is almost zero - its less than for the regular flu. As the CDC (and Dr. Fauci has said this publicly several times), they highly recommend that kids go back to school live. And once there, even there is a breakout of COVID on a college campus, they should not send the kids back home.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Issue was not morbidity in college athletes. There were two issues:

1. Spread to wider more vulnerable populations. Remember, the medical community was adamant at the time about bending the infection rate down.

2. Unknown permanent complications from the disease which, at the time, included but were not limited to possible tachycardia and neurological disorders. This was being reported by the medical community as a possible danger but no studies had been done.

Sounds like you are convinced though that the ACC opened for totally “pure reasons” and the B1G opened for “impure reasons.” I don’t see it as clearly as you and see the differences in responses across the country as a symptom of having no national plan, which we still don’t have. It’s fine to say, I suppose, let each state work it out or each conference work it out on their own but this is what you get -inconsistent and even contradictory responses. That doesn’t surprise me at all.

But, like I say, you are convinced of something I don’t see. We will have to agree to disagree. Good day to you.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Issue was not morbidity in college athletes. There were two issues:

1. Spread to wider more vulnerable populations. Remember, the medical community was adamant at the time about bending the infection rate down.

2. Unknown permanent complications from the disease which, at the time, included but were not limited to possible tachycardia and neurological disorders. This was being reported by the medical community as a possible danger but no studies had been done.

Sounds like you are convinced though that the ACC opened for totally “pure reasons” and the B1G opened for “impure reasons.” I don’t see it as clearly as you and see the differences in responses across the country as a symptom of having no national plan, which we still don’t have. It’s fine to say, I suppose, let each state work it out or each conference work it out on their own but this is what you get -inconsistent and even contradictory responses. That doesn’t surprise me at all.

But, like I say, you are convinced of something I don’t see. We will have to agree to disagree. Good day to you.

1) This line of thinking is debunked as a reason to not have football, because the schools were allowing students to come back on campus. Social activities are infinitely more problematic on virus transmission than playing football. If they were worried about reducing the spread, they wouldn't allow 10s of thousands of students back onto campus.

2) This is also a tangent of (1). If schools are worried about severe complications of the virus, they wouldn't allow 10s of thousands of students to come back on campus and risk being infected and acquiring those conditions. We have infinitely more data on much worse things related to football, such as CTE, bone breaks, and cartilage tears.

This obsession with a national plan still confounds me. We are several months into having a national plan. From PPE to ventilators to recommendations on masks, going back to school, social distancing, and so on. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the price of rice in China when it comes to playing football or not. Staying laser focused on the BigTen's football decision - they never announced specific reasons why they canceled...they said they would never revisit that decision...then a month later they did and didn't announce specific reasons why they changed their mind. I don't think they are evil or stupid or obsessed with political ramifications - I simply think they got bad information and were scared about it (likely by legal representation) and it sent them down the path they went down.

 

[MWBATL]

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.

No apology is necessary...I did not feel that you implied I was a peon (although my wife might have another opinion)...I was trying to imply that the Big Ten officials were taking that attitude.

I don't think we'll ever completely understand the thinking that goes into these decisions, but I do suspect that public officials may be driven by factors that are much simpler than conspiracy theories. Having just spent time at Disney, I concluded that there approach was to make as certain as possible that they did not get sued by anyone for having poor health and safety protocols. I was not at all convinced they really cared about my safety, as much as being driven by some lawyers opinions who told them what to do to be as safe as possible legally. My suspicion is that the Big Ten officials may have gone that some route. It's an easy route to take and it would take a contrarian and rebel to refuse to take the lawyers' advice. That frankly makes much more sense than any political posturing, per se.

I further suspect that once they saw that other conferences were taking a different approach, the dollars involved overwhelmed the risks concerns, and voila...we're playing football now.

Oh, and one more thing..you correctly pointed out that even though these are public universities supported by taxpayers dollars, their athletic programs are not, so they do not owe us peons a full explanation. Now, if I were a season ticket holder I'd be furious with the lack or transparency, but..i think they were just flat embarrassed.

 

[Milwaukee]

 

[Deleted member 2897]

So thankful we’ve gotten through 6 games. Feels like we’re in bonus territory now and the dance could end at any moment.

 

[4shotB]

and the dance could end at any moment.

TBH, there have been a few moments this year that I have prayed for that to happen!

 

[orientalnc]

So thankful we’ve gotten through 6 games. Feels like we’re in bonus territory now and the dance could end at any moment.

This is the front page sub-head this morning in USA Today:

"The U.S. sees a death every 107 seconds as the third wave hits."

Although some games were canceled, football has been more successful than I predicted. But my worry level is increasing for the basketball season.

 

[TechPreacher]

This is the front page sub-head this morning in USA Today:

"The U.S. sees a death every 107 seconds as the third wave hits."

That's great news, because the normal death rate is 1 every 11 seconds. So it seems that ole 'rona is increasing US life expectancies.

 

[orientalnc]

That's great news, because the normal death rate is 1 every 11 seconds. So it seems that ole 'rona is increasing US life expectancies.

The data for deaths per 107 seconds are for covid deaths only.

 

[LibertyTurns]

The data for deaths per 107 seconds are for covid deaths only.

If only 1 of 10 deaths is from Rona, how can Rona cause a 30% increase in overall deaths? Pardon me, I never took mutt math.

 

[orientalnc]

I am not going down that rabbit hole. The source of the data is Johns Hopkins. There is a contact number on their website. I talked to them back in the Spring and they were very helpful.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I am not going down that rabbit hole. The source of the data is Johns Hopkins. There is a contact number on their website. I talked to them back in the Spring and they were very helpful.

I got your back oriental - here is my response on your behalf: “IIWII”.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I am not going down that rabbit hole. The source of the data is Johns Hopkins. There is a contact number on their website. I talked to them back in the Spring and they were very helpful.

I really don‘t care who the data came from if our normal death rate is a death every 11 secs and we’ve only added (and that’s not what was even claimed) another death every 107 secs, then you’ve increased the death rate by less than 1%. Arithmetic is arithmetic. Learned it when I was 4. IIWII.

 

[MWBATL]

I am not going down that rabbit hole. The source of the data is Johns Hopkins. There is a contact number on their website. I talked to them back in the Spring and they were very helpful.

No matter which way you cut it, that is an extremely sensationalistic headline designed....not to inform...but to create fear. Sad to see the state of "journalism" in America today.

 

[GT_EE78]

I really don‘t care who the data came from if our normal death rate is a death every 11 secs and we’ve only added (and that’s not what was even claimed) another death every 107 secs, then you’ve increased the death rate by less than 1%. Arithmetic is arithmetic. Learned it when I was 4. IIWII.

It might be much lower than that. CDC has reported that only 6% of reported deaths were DUE to covid. the remainder were deaths with covid.
So that increase might be more like 0.1% if it needs to divide by 10 for realism.

 

[TechPreacher]

No matter which way you cut it, that is an extremely sensationalistic headline designed....not to inform...but to create fear. Sad to see the state of "journalism" in America today.

Activism disguised as journalism