Dan Patrick on the latest Big 10 plan from his source
Dan Patrick, who was the first to report that Big Ten chancellors and presidents were voting to cancel fall football season, weighed in today with the latest on the conference’s plans:
It's a long shot. The video is in the link below.
August 31st, 2020 at 10:49 AM ^
It’s not happening. Let’s all just move on.
August 31st, 2020 at 10:52 AM ^
I agree, we still have the Lions on Sundays,, (welp) let's try and look forward to that.
August 31st, 2020 at 10:55 AM ^
I’ve got the Browns. Different team, same feelings.
August 31st, 2020 at 12:27 PM ^
Isn't 2020 the year the Lions and Browns will both be 9 - 0 and then the season gets cancelled do to Flu and Covid outbreaks?
August 31st, 2020 at 12:33 PM ^
Gasp! You put "flu" and "COVID" in the same sentence. You, sir, are cancelled!
August 31st, 2020 at 1:31 PM ^
The asteroid scheduled to pass right around election day will change course and be a direct hit if either the Lions or the Browns threaten to make the playoffs
August 31st, 2020 at 1:42 PM ^
At times I find myself rooting for that asteroid.
August 31st, 2020 at 1:50 PM ^
Don’t get your hopes up. It’s 6.5 ft in diameter, and will be significantly smaller should it find its way through our atmosphere. Apparently, to be an “asteroid”, space debris has to be detectable, and since telescope tech has improved, asteroids, which were once minimally 33ft in diameter can now be as small as 3.3ft. I’m no expert on what kind of damage an asteroid less than 6.5ft could do, but I’d bet nothing cataclysmic, well, maybe cataclysmic for some poor football game being played.
August 31st, 2020 at 2:07 PM ^
... or for "Flavortown" or whatever they call that location where the cooler poopers worship.
August 31st, 2020 at 2:55 PM ^
So no giant asteroid triggering the Yellowstone supervolcano? We just can't have anything nice this year. SAD.
August 31st, 2020 at 5:43 PM ^
An asteroid the size of Texas hitting this planet might be the best thing for it
August 31st, 2020 at 11:17 AM ^
Well, all the Vikes do is dangle the carrot of hope out there and never seem to make the leap.
Not sure who has it worse, Lions/Browns fans or Vikings fans permanently playing the Charlie Brown kicking game.
August 31st, 2020 at 11:38 AM ^
F*** Kork Coupons and all his "walking the streets" bullshit talk.
August 31st, 2020 at 11:47 AM ^
I agree. Not a fan of his idiot ass. Was pissed when they "hired" him. Living in Minneapolis it's hard to root for that idiot. They'd have been such better off just keeping Teddy.
August 31st, 2020 at 12:29 PM ^
Come on man, the Vikings have a winning history and tradition. You cannot compare them to the Lions and Browns.
August 31st, 2020 at 12:41 PM ^
I tried to bite my tongue, but cannot... It's almost comical how fans of other teams continue to tell us how sad-sack their teams are in comparing them to the Lions. The Vikes/Bills/Dolphins (and many others) have played in multiple Super Bowls. The Browns have played in multiple AFC Championship games. Even the Texans and Jags have played in the AFC Championship game more recently than the Lions have appeared in their only one (since the SB started).
Every team in the NFL has more playoff wins than the Lions in the SB era. The Lions reached 0-16 before anyone else did, and they did it while trying to win! (I've long thought that Cleveland threw a couple games...) Rod Marinelli can be rightly considered as the worst head coach hire in NFL history; Matt Millen as the worst GM hire in NFL history.
People, please stop trying to compare to Lions fans' level of misery. You're not going to measure up...
August 31st, 2020 at 12:51 PM ^
if you want to get super technical the cleveland franchise won a super bowl after moving to baltimore
August 31st, 2020 at 1:32 PM ^
you think thats a mark in the "good" column for Browns fans?
August 31st, 2020 at 4:18 PM ^
sure if they are named Modell.
August 31st, 2020 at 4:49 PM ^
...or Ozzie Newsome.
September 1st, 2020 at 9:31 AM ^
I'll admit to not being an impartial party here, but Browns fans have an extremely solid case to make here based on the last 30 years:
- They're 0-1 this century in the playoffs and didn't exist in their current incarnation for their last playoff win in 1994.
- Thanks to the Lions, they don't even have the hipster cred of being the first and therefore coolest team to go 0-16.
- The Browns have also had to watch a team they despise win it all 7 times ( Broncos x3, Steelers x2, Ratbirds x2), compared to just twice for the Lions ( Packers x2). Plus, the Baltimore SBs hurt more since they are an abomination that literally should not exist.
(On a personal note, the Browns not existing in the late 90's helped forge my secondary Lions fandom since I was living in SE Mich at the time, and boy howdy do I want a mulligan on that)
September 1st, 2020 at 7:21 PM ^
The Browns are pretty close though, because while their onfield performances may not be as bad, their friggen owner up and moved the team and left them without one for a decade or so. That's really bad. One more AFC title game (or whatever it is) doesn't make up for that.
August 31st, 2020 at 10:54 AM ^
I want to see it badly, but it doesn't make sense to me to play in January with depleted rosters, and then only to have 4-6 months in between seasons. IMO, it is November or bust, and we try to just start 2021 on time.
August 31st, 2020 at 11:53 AM ^
I don't understand the depleted roster narrative. I have not heard any rumors of modifying the play on the field as a result of the depleted rosters. Something like a modified kickoff to protect the bodies you have on the field might make sense but there are no reports of that type of thinking.
I see the January 2021 start as similar to the September 21 start, you will lose a solid number of talented players that will need to be replaced by people behind them on the depth chart. Everyone experiences this to some degree, if they have talent on the roster, due to graduation and underclassmen leaving for the draft. The coaches likely know who is going to play in January and are coaching them accordingly. They should all be ready as a result. I don't expect to see a great drop off. Now, I hate not seeing Nico and Mayfield play again but that is an impact all teams feel and so the next man up will be ready.
August 31st, 2020 at 2:17 PM ^
I think he means the fact that a lot of NFL bound players are already opting out. So you're playing with like 3.5 classes. It's a young, spring roster, essentially. Still probably plenty of bodies, but it is a smaller roster.
The 2021 freshmen will be on campus in September and all other classes will be 2/3 of a year older and more developed so def a difference between Jan 21 and Sept 21.
August 31st, 2020 at 2:30 PM ^
It's a slam dunk that any player with NFL aspirations for the 2021 draft will skip spring. But, what incentive to fall 2021 returning players have to play in the spring? Why would they risk their health, both potentially going into the fall (injury) and from the Covid-19 health risk? The NCAA has already essentially given them a free pass, allowing them to retain their eligibility. It's highly unlikely schools would withhold scholarships based on a player sitting out the spring. You have to remember, that in addition to wanting to play in the fall, both players and parents wanted adequate safety measures in place. It remains to be seen when that standard will be met. Also, there were demands of insurance and unions and compensation. Those aren't just going to go away. The way I see it, depending on what happens with SEC/ACC/Big12, the Big10 and Pac 10 players might be at the height of their power come this fall. They're not just going to line up for a spring season.
August 31st, 2020 at 3:43 PM ^
Except OSU, they will have nobody sit out. What kinda cool-aid are they giving them?
August 31st, 2020 at 10:25 PM ^
The kind with gold Krugerrands in the bottom of the glass.
August 31st, 2020 at 2:22 PM ^
Could be a great opportunity to have new starters get some game experience headed into the 2021 season. Would love for a litmus test opportunity for the Joe Milton and McCaffrey decision on a season that largely won't matter. Add in getting game experience for all new starters at oline and get early enrolling freshman a head start on game prep and practice.
I'll feel a whole lot better about the 2021 Fall season with 6-8 games to address a lot of the unknowns.
August 31st, 2020 at 10:59 AM ^
No thanks on the late January start.
August 31st, 2020 at 4:43 PM ^
Oh come on...you and everyone else on this board would be thrilled to have two months of Michigan games starting in January.
August 31st, 2020 at 11:01 AM ^
This is all so dumb, especially since we are still practicing. No one with any kind of pro prospects is going to play in January and the viral difference between starting in September and starting in November is almost non-existent.
August 31st, 2020 at 11:12 AM ^
Starting in November actually does a number of things.
it allows you to wait and see how it looks while the SEC and co. are giving it a go, and make any necessary adjustments. You also have the fact that for most school, holiday break starts on Thanksgiving and goes through New Years. Which essentially allows the football players to live in a quasi-bubble like they did over the summer and keeps a much more controllable environment.
theres also the possibility that over the course of those 2 1/2 months, we learn more about the virus, how to fight it, and how to address its effects.
August 31st, 2020 at 11:29 AM ^
I'm not going to say that there is no merit to your points but I think you're searching pretty hard to justify this. Again, they are practicing right now, with students on or about to be on campus.
September 5th, 2020 at 12:50 AM ^
I’m not searching hard at all. It’s pretty simple to figure out. The November timeline matches up with the semester schedule. It’s also a month and a half after other conferences start. There’s really not much searching. It’s clear as day what the benefits are.
and its not practicing that’s the issue. As we’ve seen, the team being isolated results in few positives. As we’ve also seen, adding 20-30k students to campus results in more positives. Games occur at this time. Waiting until students go home for 2 months makes the environment the players would be in more similar to the one they’ve been practicing in now. Make sense?
it more seems like you’re searching really hard for a way to argue against something that actually has a lot of valid reasons behind it.
August 31st, 2020 at 12:01 PM ^
Or you could just send the students home now, prevent a campus-wide outbreak, and start football on time.
August 31st, 2020 at 8:46 PM ^
That makes explicit what schools would prefer to keep hidden: to wit, football players are athletes first and foremost. Everything else is lip service for preserving profits.
But yes, football in a bubble could work. It might even work well if you host all the games on a neutral field and house everything there.
August 31st, 2020 at 9:16 PM ^
You don’t have to send the students home. Since most schools have many classes on-line, they can bubble even if students are on campus.
August 31st, 2020 at 9:54 PM ^
Not unless they're literally kept in the practice facility 24/7.
August 31st, 2020 at 11:20 AM ^
Agree 100%. My take has shifted 180 when I learned they were still having some formal practices. I just assumed I guess that workouts would go to informal. If they are practicing, you're really not adding 'much' (yes, I know traveling and all that, but) COVID risk by just playing a game.
I still don't think it's feasible to play a full schedule (see Auburn if this was a game week)...but let them try if they are practicing already and around each other.
August 31st, 2020 at 11:28 AM ^
As yesterday’s post on testing pointed out, there is a huge difference in the amount and urgency of rapid testing needed to support games vs practicing. There is likely to be significantly more rapid testing available in November than there is today. This should be a huge consideration for everyone (and should have been a much bigger consideration for teams choosing to play than it apparently was).
August 31st, 2020 at 11:30 AM ^
That's only relevant if there is a lag on player testing, which I, and I'm guessing you too, have no reason to believe.
August 31st, 2020 at 12:12 PM ^
It has nothing to do with the lag in player testing. It is about the amount of society’s very limited supply of rapid testing needed to support football. As yesterday’s post pointed out, a major hospital is being asked to use more than their normal weekly supply of rapid tests just to support a football game. Leaving none for other reasons (and that rapid testing capability is needed for many things other than Covid). That seems to me that it should be a pretty important consideration. The calculus on this consideration changes as rapid testing capability increases.
August 31st, 2020 at 12:13 PM ^
I still think there's a big difference between having 200 people from another state/university travel to play a game than practicing within your own team/campus. Can it be done safety? Well....maybe. The SEC is about to do it no matter what. But practicing against the guys you share a locker-room and campus with is still a different risk level than playing a game against another school.
I think the key to November was outlined earlier in this thread - you get to see how other conferences are doing, you get to see what's happening on your own campuses, and you buy some time for the rapid testing to roll out that might truly allow more "real time" confidence about the risk of spread.
August 31st, 2020 at 1:12 PM ^
Travel only makes a difference if there are different protocols in different places. The big ten could mandate that not being the case. Regardless if that is an issue in September, it's also one in November or January.
August 31st, 2020 at 12:16 PM ^
But that lack of lag is likely at the expense of others receiving test results, so there is a cost. It probably isn't borne by the athletes, but that's not necessarily because it doesn't exist. Of course, some schools will simply open up their own testing facilities and if the rapid testing picks up then maybe that clears up some issues as well, but then you get into potential shortages or reagents and other testing materials.
I guess the larger point is that none of this occurs in a vacuum.
August 31st, 2020 at 1:15 PM ^
You've changed the parameters of the discussion though, that was not a stated reason for postponement. You will always be taking resources away from somewhere for the sake of football, maybe at some point in time the effects of that will be less. Maybe.
August 31st, 2020 at 1:35 PM ^
Your argument was that college teams will likely experience a lag in getting test results and that's (likely) correct. But your original argument didn't have anything to do with testing at all; it was about viral load differences.
I won't argue with you that in the battle for limited resources and time colleges with millions of dollars will fast-track their own results. I'm simply saying that there's a social cost to that and hand-waving that away isn't necessarily a good thing just so that the Big 10 can get some games between Illinois and Purdue in before the new year.
August 31st, 2020 at 1:54 PM ^
Is this meant as a reply to me? If so we have a misunderstanding because i said nothing about viral load and I'm saying there is not currently a lag in player testing so a rapid test isn't going to change anything with respect to the players.
August 31st, 2020 at 2:22 PM ^
If there is more rapid testing available in November, it will absolutely have less of an impact. There is no maybe about it. Abbott plans to have scaled up to 50 million rapid tests a month by October. That is significantly more total tests than are being done now. That is only one company. Others are also ramping up rapid testing capacity. Those tests do not use PCR technology so they don’t interfere with non-covid rapid testing. There is no maybe about that fundamentally changing the discussion about whether resources are being taken away from society as a whole.