LSAClassOf2000

September 13th, 2020 at 1:29 PM ^

A truncated Big Ten season is going to bring on the normal existential dread that much faster, isn't it? This is where I wish I was able to drink.

In all seriousness, I guess we shall see....

LSA Aught One

September 13th, 2020 at 5:54 PM ^

You should have stopped at "So, he in the hell."

It's appropriate, because either way he loses.  Half of the torch and pitchfork crowd want FOOTBAW BAMN (for those of you at UM in the late 90s, you remember this) and the other half will call for his head if he puts the university at risk by agreeing to a season.  

He, in fact, in the hell.

GoodLuckVarsity

September 13th, 2020 at 1:36 PM ^

It’ll be interesting to see what the format ends up being. Playing 8 consecutive weeks with no byes (is that realistic?) would see the regular season end on December 5 leaving room for the Big 10 Championship on December 12 (which I’d assume is the latest it could wrap up for CFP/Bowl purposes. So, division opponents plus 2 crossover games?

Don

September 13th, 2020 at 1:38 PM ^

“people familiar with the decision have transitioned from hopeful to confident the league’s football teams will play in 2020.

Those people told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel they expect the Big Ten’s Council of Presidents and Chancellors will vote to start the season, with the target date Oct. 17.”

How can people be “familiar” with a decision that hasn’t been made yet?

 

M-Dog

September 13th, 2020 at 2:38 PM ^

The decision has already been made.  They are going to play.

The "vote" based on "new information" and "new protocols" is just a face-saving mechanism.

The writing was on the wall when the Big Ten cancelled too early, and the rest of CFB did not blindly go with them.  They have been squirming for a way out ever since.

 

jmblue

September 13th, 2020 at 1:45 PM ^

If you genuinely believe that college football is a key vector of infection of Covid-19, this is doing it backwards.  Mid-October is right about when seasonal illnesses start to ramp up, so you’d really want to get in as many games earlier on.

But this was most likely just a dumb bit of posturing, backed by dodgy scientific reasoning, that has blown up in our conference’s face and has made it a national laughingstock.  So let’s just drop the charade already.

JamesBondHerpesMeds

September 13th, 2020 at 1:54 PM ^

But this was most likely just a dumb bit of posturing, backed by dodgy scientific reasoning, that has blown up in our conference’s face and has made it a national laughingstock.

Anyone laughing at any organization for playing it safe is borderline psychotic, IMO. 

Sturgis, indoor weddings, and frat parties: those, we can laugh and cry at.

bronxblue

September 13th, 2020 at 2:07 PM ^

It's very telling that in a country that just passed 200k deaths due to COVID-19 you're a "laughingstock" if you look at all that mayhem and say "maybe we shouldn't have college football right now", but if you talked about "family" and talked about how kids were less likely to get sick at practice than at home (which is, at best, dodgy scientific reasoning given how many breakouts we've seen on teams), you're trumpeted as a hero of personal liberty.  

It's a dumb idea to play football right now, and letting fans into the stands so that they can get each other sick (because I saw enough of the FSU and KSU crowds to conclude the limited mask wearing and general disregard for distance were in full effect) doesn't help.  But presidents are humans and don't want to be yelled at and sued by people who, frankly, won't be held liable if/when someone associated with their schools gets sick and, possibly, die.  So they'll vote for some version of a season, it'll be a bunch of fits and starts, and the people who just don't want to be bored on Saturdays will keep making rationalizations about why their desire to see these games is more high-minded than it is.