Can College Coaches Be Trusted with this Covid situation?
Poster robpollard made this comment in the Va/VaTech thread that I think needs highlighting.
There is 100% chance, likely after the season, we will discover that certain teams said "slow the testing down, please!" before key games.
The incentives are far too great -- for example, if your backup QB is out with a shoulder injury, so your depth is thin, why would a motivated coach want to know his star QB's COVID status the week before a big game? If the coach doesn't know, one way or the other, he has plausible deniability.
This comment gave me pause. When you think about it, with this hyper-competitive, win at all costs, college sports environment, can coaches be trusted to prioritize health and safety over winning a game? We've seen coaches turn a blind eye to all manner of malfeasance by players and staff, so is it beyond the pale to think that the Head Football Coach at Big State University, who has a multimillion dollar salary riding on the outcome the season, would withhold the testing of certain players, possibly asymptomatic spreaders, in order to increase the probability of a win against their rival, or any other opponent?
As robpollard said, the incentives are far too great. So great, in fact, that I think this reasoning is one of primary factors against continuing a college football season. People with a lot to lose sometimes take quite unnecessary risks, especially when it's not their health and safety being compromised (Paterno, Dantonio, Kelly, Meyer, Durkin, Hoke). Can coaches be trusted to do what is prudent when we have ample evidence that their overriding principle is to win at any costs?
September 13th, 2020 at 5:04 AM ^
I think you answered your own question.
September 13th, 2020 at 5:24 AM ^
No you can't trust them.
We've seen college coaches lie about why players aren't on the team anymore. We've seen college coaches lie about their assistant coaches behavior. We've seen college coaches lie about murdered players in order to protect themselves. We've seen college coaches lie and hide guns for players accused of crimes. We've seen college coaches lie and protect child molesters because they were good coordinators.
So no, you cannot trust college coaches to always do the right thing.
And no, it's not every single college football coach ever. And I'd wager that the vast majority of college coaches aren't giant scumbags. But it's just like the concussion protocol for players; you need to have an impartial 3rd party around to sometimes say "No".
September 13th, 2020 at 12:47 PM ^
To me the part that sucks the most is that these people are supposed to be role models helping mold young men as they transition from teens to 20-somethings. The athletes (who are still college students first and are there to learn - despite the dollars suggesting otherwise) will spend more time with the coaches than with their families for 3-5 years. Coaches who likely at some point told their parents, "I'll treat him like my own son."
September 13th, 2020 at 5:32 AM ^
Username checks out.
September 13th, 2020 at 8:15 AM ^
Congrats, you win the thread. :-)
September 13th, 2020 at 9:50 AM ^
That's what I planned on posting. :)
- - - - -
Months ago some (possibly including me) speculated on the possibility that Clemson and the SEC would intentionally infect all their players so that they'd be run through by the time the season started. I wouldn't put that (or shady testing routines) past anyone.
September 13th, 2020 at 6:41 AM ^
I assume the testing policy would be uniform and 3rd party administered for this very reason
not much you can do when the department of health gets a positive test result. That kinda scandal would put spell the end of a program
September 13th, 2020 at 9:39 AM ^
Unfortunately I don’t think it would spell the end of any program. If what happened at MSU, PSU, Baylor, etc. doesn’t take down a program this wouldn’t even come close.
You’d need someone from the conference to administer the tests to ensure there is no funny business.
On the other hand, I think very few coaches will be fired this year for play on the field, especially if they lose key players. Any coach who does the right thing will get a free pass for the year.
September 13th, 2020 at 7:07 AM ^
a poll of college athletic trainers showed that 59% of athletes where some what sticking to protocols and 46% of coaches. coaches are paid to win games.. Not sure if many care about the other stuff.
September 13th, 2020 at 7:15 AM ^
I wouldn’t trust ALL coaches, and in this situation that is what it takes to have a successful season. If I were a B1G president, I’d require some protocol like teams test before travel, positive cases don’t travel. Then both teams get tested day of game by a 3rd party, positive cases don’t play. If that can be executed reliably, I feel like the other stuff can be worked out to have a safe season. This also incentivizes teams to limit spread on their own, as they’re put at a competitive disadvantage if they don’t.
September 13th, 2020 at 8:01 AM ^
What about the rampant false positives?
September 13th, 2020 at 9:24 AM ^
Oh so now the false positives don't exist anymore? Or did some libiot "publication" come out with a "study" that they don't exist so now the brainless sheep are flocking to that hill?
September 13th, 2020 at 9:43 AM ^
Did you just write a question as a post, then get so angry at your own rhetorical question, you needed to respond in ANGR! to it?
Well done. I call that pulling a Hannity.
September 13th, 2020 at 10:07 AM ^
His question is in response to the down votes.
September 13th, 2020 at 12:18 PM ^
It was a terrible question intended to bait people. Downvotes well-deserved.
September 13th, 2020 at 2:40 PM ^
Perhaps the term "libiot publication" isn't the best choice when joining a discussion.
The Hannity is strong in this one.
September 13th, 2020 at 10:48 AM ^
I guess I’m confused why you made the post and then felt the need to immediately attack your opposing end of the political spectrum immediately upon receiving downvotes.
false positives are a thing for sure; I think it’s fairly obvious that you handle them by quarantining each player and continuing to test them. If the best testing we have provides false positives (not sure how “rampant” they are), then you err on the side of caution and hold a player out.
was that hard for you to come to terms with on your own? Or were you just hoping to be able to use anger as a vessel for politically attacking people with a different set of views as your own? Nothing in this post was remotely related to politics or a political stance, until you got angry that a small handful of people you don’t know and have never met clicked the thumb down in showing they don’t agree with you.
are you ok?!?
September 13th, 2020 at 11:21 AM ^
"Libiot" -- that's some brilliant stuff there, bro. You pick that up at your local grade school playground?
September 13th, 2020 at 4:00 PM ^
He went to Hannity Tech
September 13th, 2020 at 3:32 PM ^
I'm not familiar with your posting history Ibpeley, but I was guessing the negs for your 1st post were based on you having a history of being a COVID denier?
Then I saw this "libiot" post & I didn't need to guess anymore.
So, to the point at hand - there are false positives - the NFL had ~100 during camps but isolated the problem as being at one single lab. The SF Giants just had their Fri & Sat games postponed by a positive that has not been confirmed through multiple re-tests over the past 36 hours (using both the quick & overnight tests).
So the false positives do exist, and the main reason I believe the B10 is ready to proceed with Fall sports is the advent of more (and more reliable) quick tests.
Nothing will help a positive the night before the game likely tho.
But that's a small risk to get football back, I think!
September 13th, 2020 at 9:42 AM ^
College football isn’t essential. It shouldn’t be happening anyways. But if it is, a false positive is just something that you’ll have to deal with. Better that than a false negative
September 13th, 2020 at 9:58 AM ^
What is and isn’t “essential” and who gets to decide? You?
September 13th, 2020 at 4:03 PM ^
Look up the definition.
I don't think you'll find being entertained by sports under any of them, no matter how many sources you check.
September 13th, 2020 at 10:23 AM ^
True false positives aren't really rampant so...
September 13th, 2020 at 11:59 AM ^
As opposed to "false" false positives?
September 13th, 2020 at 12:18 PM ^
Well actually yes. Good on you though you got to be snarky while bringing nothing to the discussion.
September 13th, 2020 at 10:53 AM ^
So what if they did this and then they test like the day of or whatever and you find a couple guys who were positive? Don’t you have to quarantine people who have been around that player and monitor them for testing? How fast is the onset once exposed? These are legitimate questions I am unsure of, I’m not at all trying to be a dick and poke holes in your argument; which I think is a very solid starting point
September 13th, 2020 at 11:17 AM ^
I can never tell who the replies are to so forgive me if this wasn't meant for me.
There's a reason I said true false positive, where there is in fact zero virus present but still a positive result. This is unfortunate and does happen but is not super common. In this case, with a one off test, quarantine would be warranted. What the poster above is probably talking about was an article that conflated true false positives with a positive result from viral levels that are low enough where the person in question is not contagious. Again with a one off test, quarantine would probably be warranted. Since athletes are likely to be tested multiple times weekly you will be able to weed out most of these "false positives".
September 13th, 2020 at 11:23 AM ^
Nah, I think he just wanted to get mad and call people "libiots" because it makes him feel better.
September 13th, 2020 at 11:27 AM ^
Was meant for Cumstein, but always appreciate constructive conversation and an opportunity to learn more
September 13th, 2020 at 11:27 AM ^
Double trouble!
September 13th, 2020 at 11:31 AM ^
Appreciate the insight! This all reminds me of the courses in microbiology I took, so I completely understand what you mean, and my thinking is aligned here. Thanks for the info
September 13th, 2020 at 11:24 AM ^
It’s a fair question, and I don’t know the science around Covid onset and certainty behind the testing well enough to really answer (hopefully those making decisions do!). I’m thinking that contact tracing isolation would be unnecessary in this specific case bc those individuals themselves are being tested in real time (IMO contact tracing isolation is out of caution before being confirmed negative, whereas in this case we should have the answer).
Is it possible that they test negative, and then 4 hours later are contagious for game time? I’m not sure, if so, that would certainly be an issue that needs to be addressed with the plan described above. My other question would be does negative test necessarily mean that person isn’t contagious for the next day or two? I’m thinking that would have to be true for this to work.
September 13th, 2020 at 11:39 AM ^
Appreciate the reply, I’m basically asking the same questions you bring up
September 13th, 2020 at 12:25 PM ^
Also, I didn’t articulate this well above (in relation to the OP topic), but the spirit of the plan needs to be such that the penalty for concealing positives (wrt having more of your team excluded due to inter squad spread) must be >> the value x probability of squeezing a star player onto the field via a false negative. That will incentivize honesty by the coaches.
September 13th, 2020 at 11:44 AM ^
FYI - I am pretty sure this WAS the plan - aka blind 3rd party testing - for the B1G before they postponed/cancelled the season. One of the issues with that plan was an approximate 3 day turn-around with testing methods at the time (including shipment) which meant you would have to rely on a test from Wed or TH and assume the player did not contract CoVid in the interim. This is why the rapid testing is a game-changer.......Maybe you have the extra cost to have “non-biased” testing people at the stadiums but you can be sure that players are non infected before walking out on the field (assuming near 100% test accuracy).
September 13th, 2020 at 7:22 AM ^
idk man you do you
September 13th, 2020 at 7:31 AM ^
It's unfortunate that often the things that make someone a *successful* coach are the rules they're willing to bend or break. I'm sure there are some college coaches who are squeaky clean and just brilliant minds, but I wouldn't really trust any of them fully with something like this. The incentives are too misaligned.
The same goes for just about anyone that has worked their way to the top of their ladder. CEOs, politicians, etc. Can't really get there without stepping on a few people or skirting a few rules others are following during the ascent.
In this case, I think it'll be a combination of some coaches who believe for one reason or another that COVID just isn't that big a deal and are reckless because of that, and coaches who know the seriousness but choose to ignore it. Lots do seem to be taking it as seriously as they can while still doing their jobs, which is good even if I personally think the entire idea of a college football season isn't the wisest thing right now.
September 13th, 2020 at 7:43 AM ^
College football coaches in general lean hard to the slimy end of the scruples spectrum.
September 13th, 2020 at 7:48 AM ^
It's the same thing at the fed gov level. If it happens with this, it happens with other things.
September 13th, 2020 at 8:03 AM ^
It happens in every walk of life. Being scrupulous or unscrupulous has more to do with who you are than what your job is. From CEO to custodial staff, public employee to priest, you can find examples of people who are scumbags and put themselves before others. Unfortunately it is not a trait monopolized by one profession. On the other hand, there are in fact conscientious, caring people in all of those roles too.
September 13th, 2020 at 7:50 AM ^
If only there were some kind of national athletic organization Who could have developed an uniform plan over the summer to have indep, 3rd party health officials ensure safety of the professional and non-professional collegiate players do as to avoid this kind of malfeasance.
September 13th, 2020 at 7:59 AM ^
That’s ridiculous. Stop.
September 13th, 2020 at 8:21 AM ^
September 13th, 2020 at 7:56 AM ^
I’d say yes because of the risk of infecting much of the team keeping them out for 2 weeks.
September 13th, 2020 at 8:19 AM ^
If much of the team gets infected, the game would be cancelled. Not a loss. Furthermore, certainly not a guarantee that a large chunk of your team will be infected. Finally, maybe the next games are cupcakes.
So, sit the star player and incur guaranteed immediate increased chance of loss in a big game v. Rolling the dice with outcomes of 1) no impact on future 2) having lesser players unavailable for lesser games or 3) having to cancel lesser future games.
I believe Urban Myer and others of his ilk would play his infected star if given a chance to make that choice.
September 13th, 2020 at 8:11 AM ^
It’s like anything else. You trust an athletic department and coach to make good decisions regarding Covid protocols until you can’t.
September 13th, 2020 at 8:16 AM ^
Hell no. Zero chance OSU follows any sort of testing protocols. This is why the season should not be played.
September 13th, 2020 at 8:23 AM ^
OSU will perform 100 tests for 100 players. But pity the poor 5th string walk on who has to get tested 5 times a day.