Wish: if team can't play in Michigan, go play in Florida
Florida recently invited all pro football teams to come to Florida to play and practice:
https://www.newsweek.com/florida-invites-all-professional-sports-play-practice-there-even-those-new-york-1503888
I don't know if it is possible, but --
If Michigan the state or Michigan the university doesn't allow the football team to start going into the gym and practicing, or doesn't allow it to start the season, I wish that the football team would go to Florida to do so.
Get things going in Florida. Come back to Michigan whenever it is that Michigan decides athletes can be on campus.
If U of M doesn't allow players into the gym and to practice, they will be doing it elsewhere anyway. They are probably safer doing it at U of M (or at least under well-funded, well-equipped professional staff guidance) than elsewhere.
I also think that it is ridiculous to have any rule that says, if the campus isn't open to everyone, U of M will ban its athletes from facilities. Regular students can further their field of study online. Athletes can't eat, work out, and play online.
Pick Florida or some other state that is open to it.
I get it—you want to be entertained by college football come hell or high water. You don’t care what facilities are used, aren’t funding any of it, and aren’t concerned about player and staff illness. If it’s not safe for students, how is it safe for players? Every other student has to be online but they are going to let athletes enjoy all the campus benefits because they are athletes? And how is this being paid for? This isn’t the same as a week in Florida to prep for a bowl game with a game check waiting, or a trip abroad courtesy of some generous donors. How long do you think they can support housing and feeding the entire roster and coaches? Fall camp alone is what, 4 weeks?
No. You are wrong about nearly everthing I think.
Regarding payment, did you know that michigan football brings in 175 million dollars per year?
Regarding health of people, if florida opens and michigan does not, can you tell who is right? Are you a greater health expert than either state?
Wow. So, can you tell who’s wrong or right? Are you a “greater health expert than either state”? You’re arguing against yourself here.
No. My feeling is that it should be up to individuals affected. Not me. Not you. Not fisbulb.
If some place allows and another doesnt, up individuals to decide, not mandated by antifreedom proponents who want to run other peoples lives.
When ISIS had land, it allowed Islamic terrorism. Should doing that also up to individuals to decide, or can we draw a line at things that kill others?
No. My feeling is that it should be up to individuals affected. Not me. Not you. Not fisbulb.
Personally, I'm expecting at least some students to be on campus this fall. But why do people feel "because the people want to" is a valid reason for anything to open up? I've seen a lot of people suggest that they should just open up and let people decide for themselves. Which...I'm sorry, what?! People want to do a lot of things that are terrible for them. They should open things up when they feel they can protect people to a reasonable degree. Not because the people want them to.
Cuz ‘Merica and muh freedomz
This is an unnecessary and lazy take on the subject. Boiling a POV down to such tropes...it minimizes those that have legitimate concerns.
Being concerned about the freedoms is not trivial, and expressing doubt about how recent actions have already affected, affect now, and will affect in the future our freedoms is legitimate. Sure, a subset of individuals may be overzealous with this, but making fun of people who have real concerns over the power of the government to enforce and take away freedoms is not helpful and only serves to divide and appear superior.
I was so ready to downvote you until I finished reading your comment and then I +1'd.
Hot take: If you find the government (and 99.9% of medical and health experts) telling you to wear a mask and avoid large gatherings while a global health crisis is going on that has killed 100,000 Americans in the last ~3 months to be taking away your freedoms, you might just deserve to be made fun of.
Sorry my little joke hurt your feelings I guess.
Fundamentally - this breaks down the problem. What are the costs to keep protecting vs. what are the gains? If we kill 100 people in order to save 10, did we win? And this argument could be made on either side. If we let the kids go play, they could get infected, and (if we're not smart about it) they can take the infection back to at-risk populations. If we keep everything locked down, there are increasing tensions, we are not a species that does well in captivity. Depression, alcohol abuse are rising, and income concerns are real and add further stress.
---
There isn't a single answer, and there isn't an absolute "right" answer. We have to find areas of compromise. We also have to understand that everybody wants what's best. Do we "need" football? It's not as simple as saying, "no, football's a luxury, we have to do what's best for everyone!" --- Sports is one of the ways we release tension. We invest in others, and feel part of a community (good traits). Even when we lose, we lose "together". In a world where we are actively minimizing social togetherness, doing things that artificially create "togetherness" is a win. We let garbage collectors go out, we let IT staff go out, we let cleaning crews at office buildings go out. Are young, healthy college kids more "at risk" than they are?
The U of M administration will decide. And they won't be acting completely on their own. The Big Ten will have a say in it too.
It's not the worst idea to find another place to train if their own facilities aren't available. A few caveats though. They aren't going to send them to another state just because they are open. Certainly not if their conditions aren't any better than Michigan's. There are better choices than Florida. They've already said they won't play if students can't return to campus. I wouldn't expect that to change. But being prepared to play if or when the season starts does make sense and it is hardly unprecedented for other Michigan sports to train off campus.
Covid-19 worries aside, why would anyone choose to go to Florida for summer workouts? Especially teams used to training and playing in the north.
Yes, of course. Just like it should be up to individuals to decide whether to pay taxes, stop at red lights, and dump barrels of toxic sludge into the creek behind the house. Freeeeeedom!!!
I enjoy cocaine, and yet it's not available for me to buy at CVS.
Maybe not YOUR CVS...
Okay, but what about the individuals who will be unknowingly exposed when all these people return from Florida? They don't get a choice on that?
Okay the leader of the university is making his decision. Who exactly are these individuals that are going to decide for a whole football team? Are the players going to foot the bill to go live in Florida? Cause it seems pretty clear that the University and the AD have made their decision. Now since you don’t like their decision you’ve decided to post incoherent nonsense because you demand players dance for your entertainment no matter the cost.
Very many people are greater health experts than the people running Florida, because the people running Florida refuse to listen to actual health experts.
That was an easy question. Ask me another.
Yes. Were you an art or humanities major?
B618, you wouldn't happen to be an energy vampire would you?
I'm an energy fountain. :)
My undergraduate degree is BA, if that's what you're asking. My first master's degree says "MSc," though, if that makes you feel better.
So to answer the question, you're completely unqualified to say what is and isn't safe. Glad we cleared that up. Now shut the fuck up.
Be quiet. Adults are talking.
Jon06, I did suspect, based on your responses, that you did not major in any of these fields: engineering, physical sciences, biology, or economics. I was curious if this suspicion was correct.
As an extreme example to make the point, if one person says, "I don't like lemon pie," and another person responds with, "Well, I guess you don't like to eat and think that eating is bad for people," I suspect it unlikely that the other person has training in those technical fields I mentioned. Their reasoning processes don't tend to work like that.
Google "parity of reasoning" and get back to me. I took more than my share of graduate math classes at Michigan, and I'll bet I did better in mine than you did in your cute little engineering classes.
Liberal arts majors are universally in favor of lockdowns because they're too stupid to realize that regurgitating what they heard on CNN doesn't make them a scientist.
But Florida has a fairly steady case load, and has since the beginning of the pandemic. Only 3 counties in south FL were in bad shape, but the same was true here in Metro Detroit. Remember that the (original) goal was flattening the curve to keep hospitals from being overrun. They've managed to accomplish that. In some states, the goal seems to have shifted to nearly eradicating the disease itself. That's not possible, and it's a fool's errand.
It seems to be that policies aren't the sole differentiators in the disease progression. In fact, poverty, access to healthcare, population density, and the likelihood that people will exercise common sense seem to be at least as important.
In addition to that, at least on one critical policy Florida seemed to have actually followed the science where other states failed and drastically reduced preventable deaths in nursing homes.
Can confirm, living in North Florida and being a medical professional the response was great. The influx was fairly minimal, and it’s a reasonable time to start phasing things open and respond subsequently accordingly. With regards to moving a bunch of sports teams to Florida to live, practice, play etc.... seems like a really stupid idea. I mean think of what you’re asking to do here, influx a bunch of people to a confined area.
without the logistics being a nightmare, that’s just a really foolish approach to life in a pandemic
Who the hell would downvote this? There has been deliberate and documented effort to underreport the statistics and prevent the medical examiner’s from speaking out in Florida.
Those stories are all lies. The medical examiner was fired because of a long-documented history of insubordination and because she wasn't doing her job.
Links, please. (Really -- I'd be open to any outcome. I'm barely familiar with the issue.)
True story: my brother's COVID test took 15 days to get back to him (negative). Lives in FL. Works with elderly.
This does not prove anything about the above, but is an additional datapoint that I trust that shows that some portion of FL's data is 15 days behind. And this was a test that was taken a day or two before re-opening in FL, which would fit the narrative. Again, though, one test.
Florida listened to science and didn’t allow covid positive people to be sent to nursing homes. What exactly was your point again? Oh, that Florida handled it better than CA, MI, and NY - you’re correct.
They also let a bunch of kids come down for spring break and take the virus home with them.
You can’t tell who is right and that’s kind of the point. If one state opens up before another, does that automatically mean it’s a safer or healthier place? No. It’s just means there are different forms of leadership.
Logistically this idea doesn’t even seem possible. Where are they going to stay? Where are they going to train? Where are they going to practice? Who’s going to pay for it?
Michigan football brings in $175 million every year largely because they pack 100,000-110,000 people into a stadium like sardines 7-8 times a year. Regardless of whether Michigan is allowed to play football this year or not, we can all pretty much agree that THAT isn't going to happen. The revenue that COMES from that, is going to be virtually nonexistent.
so yeah, in a normal year Michigan football might bring in that much. But this isn’t a normal year. That money doesn’t exist without butts in seats in the Big House. Not to mention the money made from concessions and parking. So the question of payment still remains.
This is a good point. Not that economics should completely drive these decisions, but certainly could play a role.
I would be really interested in the incremental economics of these theoretical scenarios. Like you say, home attendance is a big chunk (not to mention the Econ boost for the community), but isn’t everything (TV revenue, donations, sponsorship, etc.). Do we know if this remote football scenario would even generate athletic department revenue that exceeds the cost of housing, C19 risk mitigation, etc.?
It's less about the gate than you'd think. It's all about that TV money....
For the sake of argument (and quick/easy math) let’s say Michigan sells 105,000 tickets per game at an average price of $100 (some seats are less, some seats are about this price, luxury boxes are significantly more). Thats $10.5 million in ticket sales alone PER GAME. 7 or 8 home games and you’re talking $70 million+ in ticket sales alone (once you factor in group deals and giveaways). Again, that’s before concessions, parking ($50 per car at Pioneer and the golf course mind you), and gameday merchandise.
That $759 million in conference revenue is great and all. But it’s also split up between 14 schools ($54 million for each school receiving a full share) and is used to fund ALL sports. It’s not just football revenue.
So no, it really isn’t all about that TV money. It is still significantly more about the actual butts in seats at home games. Which we all agree either isn’t going to happen at all (either by not playing or playing without fans) or will happen at a significantly reduced rate. Michigan as an athletics department barely breaks even WITH all of those money making factors in place (a lot of the football profits go towards keeping other sports afloat, with a department surplus of only $1 million in 2019, and budgeted to break even in 2020 BEFORE CoVid). Now add the expense of sending ~150 people to Florida for a few months, feeding and housing them too, and it’s simply not feasible from a financial standpoint. Not to mention the logistics of it.
I think operating costs would run below a $53 million dollar tv deal. And you're completely leaving out boosters/donors helping out. The team goes on vacation every year for free. They'd make money playing games.
Hypothetically, of course. The team living in Florida or something is a dumb idea.
Operating costs would certainly not run below a $53 million dollar TV deal, which AGAIN, covers ALL athletics not just football. Not to mention that’s assuming the schools will receive a full payout. A lot of places are taking cut backs from CoVid. You think it wouldn’t have any impact on conference revenue sharing?
Housing alone would run a couple million. Part of a football scholarship includes food, so feeding all of those people daily would bring a hefty price tag as well. Where are you going to practice, workout and host games? You think those venues are going to do it free of charge or is the University going to have to pay for operating costs and rental fees? What about traveling the entire team to Florida? What about traveling to and from games? You know who else will be getting paid from that TV revenue in your scenario? Coaches and support staff. Harbaugh and the coaching staff alone made $13.5 million last year. Now again you’re talking money that covers the entire athletics department, not just football.
You also can’t compare a 2 week trip to sending ~150 people to Florida for four months.
The entire athletics budget is budgeted to break even in 2020. That means no money left over. That’s also based on FULL revenue brought in by the football team. Which again, won’t happen. You’re attempting to oversimplify the financial aspect and completely writing off a host of factors that all make this not a feasible option.
Michigan's ticket sales plus "contributions for preferred seating" (I'm assuming that is also seats in a stadium) plus concessions and parking seem to be about 50% of revenue.
50% of revenue is still about $90M/year.
For one, what happens during June and July with football is voluntary student-led workouts without coaches present. It is perfectly safe to be doing outdoor work without coaches present right now. It's also safe for students to sit outside and have student-led courses. I just don't think that's a thing students do, but it'd be safe for the them to do it if they wanted to.
Agree that this would never happen in FL because the school isn't going to pay for it. But athletes should be allowed to participate in voluntary workouts starting June 1 in Michigan as allowed by the NCAA.
https://twitter.com/InTheBleachers/status/1264589098976784386?s=20
"People who are most vehemently 'love of the game' 'you get free school' and 'amateurism is pure' are same ones rooting hardest for football back even without regular students. It's likely gonna happen, but that's also another step to proving that athletes aren't just students."
The OP didn't say anything about his position on player compensation, but I saw this tweet yesterday and it's relevant to the discussion.
Cool tweet. Does it have any statistics to back it up? My guess is most people who want football back also want most of the university back as well.
It's amusing how creative politicians are getting in using this virus as evidence for completely unrelated policy changes.
My position on nil rights is that they should be allowed and freed up.
The good ole student athlete experience.
Football isn’t that important, my dude.