Big 12 Will Play Fall Football
August 12th, 2020 at 5:19 AM ^
So if the SEC, Big XII, and ACC all move forward to play this year and finish the season out with minimal to no outbreaks, how long does Kevin Warren last before he is forcibly removed as commissioner? It wouldn’t just be fans who despise him. He’d have the ire of players and coaches in his own league.
I know he’s doing what he thinks is best, but if these conferences finish their seasons with minimal health concerns, that would be a bad, bad look for him. In that situation, I’d almost just go pack my own bags and see myself out.
August 12th, 2020 at 5:32 AM ^
No. Even if they do not have a single case it is still the right decision. Its about the messaging. This whole pandemic is about the messaging. Yes, unless you are wearing an N95 mask you cannot keep every particle of respiratory fluid in or out. By wearing a mask you send a message that "I care about the community." That's it. By the Big Ten and Pac 12 cancelling the season they are saying they care about the well-being of their student athletes. That's what it means and that's all that matters.
August 12th, 2020 at 5:40 AM ^
I care about the community - not the jobs of the people that football employs or their families. I care about the community - not enough to let adults make their own decisions with certain restrictions in place. Restrictions aren’t enough I care about the community so much I’ll remove decision making from them.
August 12th, 2020 at 7:47 AM ^
Based on your avatar I'm guess you don't actually give a fuck about the community. But way to virtue signal dude.
August 12th, 2020 at 8:54 AM ^
Everybody cares a lot about are community. Despite my local health department saying we should open school mine decided they care enough to have the kids go 100% online. Here is the schedule for K-5 kids. (The middle school schedule has 7 separate webex calls daily). People say kids can just learn from home until a vaccine. It will be fine. Why can’t your typical parent working from home, single parent, parent with multiple young kids keep them on this simple schedule? Just send the 7 year old the calendar invites and they will be fine.
9:00- 9:20 (Webex)Morning Meeting
Attendance, In-Focus lesson, Daily Schedule Preview
9:20-9:45 (Webex)Literacy - Direct Instruction
9:45-10:30Literacy - Independent Practice and Assignment Completion
10:45-11:05 (Webex)Mathematics - Direct Instruction
11:05-11:30Mathematics - Independent Practice and Assignment Completion
11:30-12:00Lunch Break
12:00-12:20 (Webex)Science/Social Studies - Direct Instruction
12:30-12:50 (Webex)One Special (Art, Music, PE) - Direct Instruction
August 12th, 2020 at 9:17 AM ^
Every age group will face its challenges but whomever thinks K-5 aged kids will be able to follow this schedule in a remote/virtual setting is out of their minds. Looks great on paper but how do full-time working parents manage this? Am I the only one who's struggling to reconcile this?
August 12th, 2020 at 9:48 AM ^
This is a very real, and very good question. And yeah... it's tough. I'm fortunate to have one child, an 8 year old daughter that has always been on a maturity and discipline level a bit ahead of her age.
But for us it took a very serious conversation and a very unfortunate explanation that she has to work harder than her mommy and daddy did when we were here age. And an understanding that, that isn't fair, but unfortunately that's the way the world is now. We explained to her, that one day, her mommy and I are going to look to her, and all of her 8 y/o peers across this country to run the place while her mommy and I retire. She thought that was so funny at first, but then realized we were serious. We explained that one day, she'll be the mommy, she'll be 35 (our age) and we'll be much older and won't have the impact on society anymore like she and her peers will. And that even though these are extraordinary times, her education will be the only thing that will allow her 8 y/o peers to run the place. It's not fair that we're asking these kids to work harder, and do more with less, but it's just the new normal. Like it or not, it's what THEY have to do.
Ofc, it was slightly brought down a bit, but honestly not much more. It was a serious conversation for such a young lady. Tossed in with a heavy dose of love, and some of it tough love - as in, Mommy and Daddy are here to help you, and we always will, but you'll have to put in your part more than you ever have.
Point is, my answer is, be honest with your children. Explain it to them. They can comprehend it, if we're willing (as parents) to be open about it.
My bigger worry is the anxiety and/or depression this group of children will face going forward. I hope we as a society will be prepared, but I have my doubts. I already see it in my nephew, he's 7, he's terrified of people right now. I am worried about what this will mean going forward for these generation of youngsters.
August 12th, 2020 at 10:52 AM ^
I really appreciate your answer on this. We had a very similar conversation with our 8 year old last night. We are going to do our best to help our kids through this and keep up their education. While most of our school staff will be teaching remotely our school is offering an all day child care option for the kids of staff and a limited number of working parents kids with no other options. My wife will be charged with taking care of 15 kids (while staying 6 feet away) who will be attending 5 to 10 different classes remotely and need to keep on this schedule. She will do her best, but it just seems like an impossible task.
Based on our current approach it would appear that waiting for a vaccine would effectively mean no in-person school until fall 2021. You stated, “It's not fair that we're asking these kids to work harder, and do more with less, but it's just the new normal. Like it or not, it's what THEY have to do”. I just can’t accept this. It’s too much to ask. We are the adults. Its morally wrong to ask our kids to make this kind of sacrifice. I get what you are saying about kids having to work harder, and they will, but many kids just don’t have the maturity and/or skills needed to learn in this environment before we even consider the various home life factors that will make this even harder on many kids. This is going to have a far more negative effect on economically disadvantaged families, kids with learning disabilities, working families, single mothers, etc. You can’t claim to care about economic justice, equal rights or any other number of social issues if you are going to accept this approach to education for another year. It will set back all these causes a generation.
If we can’t come up with an approach and the resources to get schools open safely in the current environment, then we need to change the environment. If that requires a 2 month no tolerance lockdown – so be it. If we have to quarantine everyone over 65 until a vaccine – OK. I am not sure what the solution is but the current approach which forces our kids to sacrifice while adults do things like go out to a restaurant for dinner and drinks is just wrong. What kind of a society are we if we accept a new normal that places this much of a burden on our kids?
August 12th, 2020 at 11:11 AM ^
To be honest I think thats the wrong approach. My parents left the rat race of the cities and I am very well adjusted and don't have to work that hard and have a better lifestyle than my parents did at my age. Don't put so much pressure on your kid. Relax.
August 12th, 2020 at 11:14 AM ^
I can appreciate you preparing your daughter for the future. My only criticism would be that presenting it in such a dire way is more likely to increase her anxiety from that kind of pressure.
Maybe reassure her that you'll be ok regardless? My wife's culture requires the children to support their parents though and she turned out fine. But, she and her sisters all get super stressed when they are in environments or situations that they have little control over. They aren't exactly "fun" people even though they are all very good people.
Sorry for the rambling, just blathering because I didn't get any coffee today.
August 12th, 2020 at 3:57 PM ^
I think this is one of the best posts I've seen on this. Seriously, people, don't impose your anxiety and stress about this on your kids. At the end of the day, a fascinating learning lesson from all of this will be how people who obsess about CONTROL have fared through this who people who... do not. Control what you can and... let the rest goooooooo.
August 12th, 2020 at 11:07 AM ^
You don’t care about the community if you think everyone should be free to do as they please in a pandemic - because that’s how you get other other people sick and dead. Your claim goes against every basic rule of decency, not to mention the word of all health experts.
August 12th, 2020 at 8:33 AM ^
So your conclusion is wearing a mask is useless , but looks right ?
August 12th, 2020 at 11:06 PM ^
They care so much about us caring for them that they will leave this school and conference and play elsewhere, because that's what they care about.
August 12th, 2020 at 5:54 AM ^
Don't think it was Warren's decision, he may have had some input. It was largely a political decision and the conference will have plenty of political cover in making it. That is not to say there won't be negative repercussions.
August 12th, 2020 at 7:07 AM ^
Assuming that a new set of rules were not made for the pandemic, the presidents of the 14 schools that comprise the B1G voted on whether to play or not. Warren is the messenger, is he not?
If there is animus to be directed towards anyone, it shouldn't be Warren.
Second guessing will really manifest itself if the schools that bring students back to campus have very few cases. Hopefully the students will not have significant numbers of infections but I wouldn't take the bet.
August 12th, 2020 at 10:36 AM ^
I was thinking the same. Isn't this like the NFL owners and Goodell? Goodell is the well paid punching bag who absorbs the shot for the owners decisions. I assume the university ADs or presidents or whomever made the call and Warren is just the mouthpiece
August 12th, 2020 at 7:40 AM ^
I don’t think this was a political decision, I think it was a medical decision. With all the unknowns about this virus, and with opinions even in the medical profession differing, I have to believe the university presidents weighed the information from their experts and decided this course of action was wisest. Football is important in the Big Ten, but is and should be secondary to academics and concern for the students. Time will tell which conferences made the right call, but I am comfortable that the league did what it felt made sense for the kids.
August 12th, 2020 at 8:33 AM ^
I don’t at all disagree, but the fact remains that if the Big XII, ACC and SEC all move forward with seasons and have minimal to no cases (unlikely, but still a possibility), Big Ten fans are going to lose their minds even more than they are right now, and they’re all going to be looking for someone to blame. It looks like they’ve already chosen who their scapegoat is going to be.
August 12th, 2020 at 11:35 AM ^
but it is not a possibility. They already have lots of cases. and in one case it was bad enough that the kid will not be able to start the season.
I am not saying they should or shouldn't play, just that "no cases and no long term effects to players" is not one of the possible outcomes.
August 12th, 2020 at 12:15 PM ^
"no cases and no long term effects to players" is not one of the possible outcomes.
You are absolutely correct. Our beloved sport is ripe to be a super spreader. Sad, but true.
August 12th, 2020 at 12:23 PM ^
There will definitely be infections. But there are a lot of issues here:
1. Is a player more likely to be infected on a football team, where he is presumably going to be tested/monitored regularly, than in the general campus community, where he may not be monitored at all?
2. Is society likely to see more infections with football than without?
3. If the answer to #2 is "yes," is the difference large enough to justify the massive financial losses that will be incurred?
August 12th, 2020 at 1:30 PM ^
I can think of lots of other questions:
1. If a player is infected, do schools have the knowledge and resources to check for possible complications that arise from covid. The risks associated with myocarditis increase with exercise.
2. What rules were going to be in place regarding covid infections and game cancellations? Depending upon how stringent the criteria and Projections for likelihood of criteria being triggered, even moving forward with a season may have resulted in very little actual football.
3. If s player is infected and has significant health issues, is the university more likely to be held liable with or without football/
August 12th, 2020 at 12:28 PM ^
Thank you. People acting as if there's a chance anywhere north of 0% that these conferences can get through the season without an outbreak have taken leave of their senses. MLB has had multiple already. The NBA has avoided it but it's categorically different. There are 330 active NBA players (teams outside the bubble don't count) and maybe that number again of staff per team. Let's say there are about 160 people involved in each college football team (125 players on the roster, 13 coaches/GAs, plus trainers, managers, and assorted team staff). With 12 teams in the Big 12 and 14 each in the SEC and ACC that's 6400 people. Throw in enough refs to officiate 6-7 games per weekend, per conference (42-49, not counting alternates), you're looking at around 6550. Even if my estimates are off a bit, that's ten times as many people, just in those three conferences, as are involved in the NBA. All traveling, going to class, interacting with friends and family. You can't do a bubble for college football.
I'm sure the ADs and conference bigwigs have talked with doctors (and, more to the point, lawyers); they're venal but not stupid. But to me it just seems absolutely nuts to play.
August 12th, 2020 at 1:46 PM ^
Let’s not forget, some of these schools are absolutely going to let fans in the stands.
August 12th, 2020 at 12:32 PM ^
I don’t think this was a political decision, I think it was a medical decision.
It's absolutely a political decision.
Right now there is absolutely no medical consensus about a lot of the measures we've taken during this pandemic. Initially there was, in the winter, based on the information we had at the time. Not any longer.
August 12th, 2020 at 3:13 PM ^
This is not true. There is a tremendous amount of medical consensus on what we need to do to stop the spread. There is also a tremendous amount of medical consensus on what we know and don’t know. Canceling a season because the medical consensus is that we don’t know the long term effect, but we do know it will be almost impossible to ensure there is no spread among teams is still consensus. Lastly, finding one person with a degree to go on TV to contradict the overwhelming consensus does not mean there is not consensus, it means you found a dumb person with a degree.
August 12th, 2020 at 9:15 AM ^
Agree, he was the fall guy (or will be if these other conferences play).
August 12th, 2020 at 6:30 AM ^
You don’t need to worry about this hypothetical. It is already determined.
There will be infections. And no matter how many there are, one set of people will say it was bad and one set will call it minimal.
So we already know the outcome.
August 12th, 2020 at 9:02 AM ^
My inflection is that I'm going to be enjoying non B1G football this season as will the rest of the US as the B1G becomes completely irrelevant. Horrendous idea to cancel the season a this time, could have announced a Sept start date and see how the infection rates occur or don't. Then it would be a logical time to cancel the season. They're insured too so it wasn't a liability issue, football is potentially dangerous every year.
August 12th, 2020 at 9:49 AM ^
The Big Ten was already on a slope downward competitively due to demographics. In ten years you will be able to see this decision being the inflection point where the conference began being no longer competitive with the other power conferences.
It may not be so obvious with Michigan at first. In fact, maybe we finally beat Ohio State in the future, because they are going to get hammered in recruiting. How do you go head to head for football talent, when you don't play football?
August 12th, 2020 at 7:34 AM ^
I don’t get why you or anyone else is blaming that Kevin Warren solely for making this decision. Hasn’t it been made very clear that the schools voted on this? This alone makes it bizarre that Warren is taking the blame.
Didn’t Warren and the ADs just out a revised schedule out like a week ago? Why would they have bothered if they were against trying to have a season? Doesn’t that signal that he / they wanted to at least give the season a shot? What am I missing here?
Not saying that he didn’t agree with or influence the vote, I have no idea but neither does anyone else. To me, he seems like a loyal guy who was, first signaling, and then delivering bad news from his bosses.
August 12th, 2020 at 11:02 AM ^
This. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the school presidents had the most power in this decision.
August 12th, 2020 at 8:00 AM ^
If those schools all go bankrupt from lawsuits due to permanent lung/heart issues for the athletes, does the B10 double Warren's salary?
B10 made announcements to play an altered schedule last week, the other conferences saying they are going to play means nothing until they actually play a game.
August 12th, 2020 at 9:26 AM ^
rc15, and most other people, get it. The few loud voices of opposition do not constitute a majority. These three will posture all the way up until the first game and then fold. They’ll say something like “Unlike the other conferences, we did everything we could to try to have a season. In the end, the health of our players and fans is more important.” They will be hailed as benevolent heroes by their fans, while the B1G and Pac12 will be considered hysterical overreactors for essentially doing the same thing, only three weeks earlier.
August 12th, 2020 at 8:43 AM ^
I think what you describe is called "leadership".
It's taking responsibility, and making a hard decision where you might look bad in the end, because you think it is the right thing to do.
The other option to leadership is to step back and try to get others to make the decision, and thus avoid the blame if it goes wrong. I'll avoid pointing out where this has happened -- at least, directly -- but we've seen examples of that, too. I prefer actual leadership.
I don't think any of us knows if this is the right decision; if we did, the decision would be easy, right?
But, I think we could probably all agree: it is an example of leadership. Time will judge whether it was good leadership.
August 12th, 2020 at 9:19 AM ^
I do not appreciate this form of leadership:
"It’s even more disappointing that the @uofmichigan president did not come speak to our team or even explain his decision making process. Not surprising since I’ve never seen him in the facility in my 4+ years here."
By Tyler Cochran, a walk on at Michigan who left 1 credit in order to play one more season at the institution he loved. I do not necessarily agree with everything he says, but his sentiment is poignant (full post below):
https://www.instagram.com/p/CDw3CNXlHww/?utm_source=ig_embed
August 12th, 2020 at 10:17 AM ^
There is an athletic director and a coaching staff for that. This kid is mad, I get it. It doesn’t mean that Schlissel made the wrong decision.
August 12th, 2020 at 10:28 AM ^
I’m not gonna pile on a frustrated young man for his opinions, I get why he’s mad. However, the view from 10,000 feet is that’s a pretty entitled take (again, I get why he feels that way, even if I disagree with the sentiment). While the football team is indeed an important part of the university, think of all the people who would feel equivalently important. If he’s meeting with the football team, why not men’s and women’s soccer teams? Or field hockey? Or any other fall sport? What about the faculty? They’re pretty important too. Should he meet with all the colleges professors? What about maintenance and janitorial staff? The school sure can’t work without them. What about students who don’t play sports? Or graduate students? Or campus police? The reality is the pres is not going to brief with every invested party because that would mean every second of everyday briefing people and no time presidenting. I get why a player might feel that way, but expecting the university president to carve out some time to sit with him and his teammates is a little unrealistic.
August 12th, 2020 at 10:44 AM ^
I agree with your case in a general since. But these are rather extraordinary circumstances do you not think?
I agree that all other teams are important, but which one is making the headlines? Which one has its coach as the highest paid public employee in your school and state?
As I stated previously, I do not agree with the kid's argumentation completely. But with all things, especially in the Big Ten, being an optics game nowadays, and the voice of the voiceless downtrodden being one of the main narratives of the year (in this case the football players who have significant argument towards compensation, yet remain "amateurs"), it would have been optically beneficial (whether changing the needle one way or not) to have a transparent discussion prior to making such a decision.
Whether President Schlissel made the correct decision is another matter and point of discussion, which has been quite extensively on this blog.
August 12th, 2020 at 10:53 AM ^
They are indeed quite extraordinary times. But you think Schlissel should sit down with the football players only? Or you think he should have different meetings with every single interested party?
Where do you draw the line with whom he should meet with? What do you tell the women’s soccer player who wants updates? “Sorry, you don’t bring in the money like the football players do and I can’t meet with everyone”? The optics of THAT decision would really not so good. The athletic director should be addressing and updating teams, not the university president.
August 12th, 2020 at 11:08 AM ^
Valid point raised, but could a not a forum be had? Some representative contingent from the fall sports players for a modicum of time?
I agree that the athletic director should be far and away the one addressing the concerns of the athletes; it is his job and usually he is the one making the decisions. But it was the university president who made the decision in this circumstance. It very well may have been that the Warde worked in tandem with the president on this decision and acted as a representative voice for the players and coaches, as he does seem to be supporting it, but the decision making process seemed veiled in a situation that desperately desires transparency.
August 12th, 2020 at 12:25 PM ^
I support that the student's right to say that (and encourage all students to get involved in public discourse...hopefully leads to involved citizens later in life).
But I agree with the other posters below, it is simply not the Uni president's job to meet with a single team, even though the football team brings in $120 million gross revenue per year. Maybe even more so.
To put into perspective, Michigan medicine brings in $4 billion in gross revenue per year; ~$400-500million in NIH grant funding per year (Yes, I realize that Schlissel has no control and limited input into Michigan Medicine)...but long-term trends in Michigan Medicine has way more importance for the university than even the football team.
August 12th, 2020 at 1:57 PM ^
How many classes did the President come speak to and explain his decision making process when school closed in March?
How many department staff meetings did the President come speak to and explain his decision making process opening in the fall?
This just shows you how entitled even walk-on football players feel. Why would they be entitled to personal attention that staff, faculty, and other students don't get?
August 12th, 2020 at 8:55 AM ^
I imagine we'll know in September if they'll truly start the season but if they play and the B1G doesn't? He's toast, As I said yesterday he's prayiing the other conferences cancel football this season.
August 12th, 2020 at 12:05 PM ^
I fully expect there to be an outbreak in Big XII schools. I also fully expect there will be an outbreak in B1G schools. The difference is one conference will be bringing in money and supporting the community while the other will have pissed off fans/students/players and people worrying about how they will pay their mortgage.
August 12th, 2020 at 5:26 AM ^
In retrospect it is going to look foolish to jeopardize life to play football in a pandemic. The schools in the B1G have put their core mission first. That is honorable no matter how it plays out in other conferences.
August 12th, 2020 at 5:51 AM ^
Your first statement is true, if your assumption is correct, that playing football jeopardizes life this year more than it did last year or more than it will next year.
August 12th, 2020 at 5:57 AM ^
Exactly. Is there evidence that suggests playing football with no fans in the stadium is more likely to spread COVID than say, going to a bar? Grocery store? Crowded gathering? If not, then fucking let them play
August 12th, 2020 at 7:35 AM ^
Um yes, lots. Close contact, heavy breathing and yelling are all known to contribute to greater spread. At the line of scrimmage you have 4-6 players within a few feet of each other yelling, panting, etc. if one is positive, likely all the rest will contract it. At a supermarket, hopefully you are maintaining distance and wearing a mask, neither of which are possible during a football game