Big10’s 21 day period vs 10-14 days for other conferences

As has been noted in Brian’s and other’s discussion threads the Big10 has a 21 day period during which players who test positive can’t play vs 14 or 10 days for other conferences. What I have not seen discussed is that these different quarantine periods have very different objectives and dramatically different consequences.  

As we know, the 10 or 14 day quarantines in the Big12, SEC, and ACC are for minimizing the risk of spread. If they are not testing everyday and getting same day results they also have to quarantine close contacts from the previous 5-10 days. The overall objective is to reduce the risk of spread once someone has the virus.  Once they are no longer contagious they can play.  

With daily testing and instant results in the Big10 you are theoretically catching the viral load at a level before it’s contagious and there is little or no need for contract tracing and no need for quarantining close contacts.  In that case a 14 day quarantine for only those testing positive would also be sufficient for minimizing spread.  

The 21 days, though, was created by the Big10 to monitor the patient long enough to screen for myocarditis risk.  If the rigorous testing protocol for myocarditis is negative after 21 days they can return to play. If positive they are not returning.  21 days is solely for player health even though it means a lot of positive cases could turn into three weeks of games being cancelled.  

This difference in approaches seems quite damning to the other conferences. The SEC for example has a very abnormal late start where teams could pursue heard immunity for competitive advantage, but doing so makes player health an after thought.  Even if teams like LSU are not ”actively” pursuing heard immunity, they are still putting players back into game and practice situations before the waiting period needed to screen for myocarditis.  

These conferences could institute a 21 waiting period for the benefit of the players but this would likely mean their 30% game cancellation rate would increase to over 50%.  They wouldn't have a season.  

Also, the lack of testing and protocol transparency in those conferences combined with the waivers they had players sign makes it easy to cut corners for competitive advantage.  The bottom line is if you add up all their current actions and policies, these conferences are allowing coaches and schools to pursue winning at all cost with no accountability to or liability from players.  How is ignoring these risks to players with no requirement for public transparency any different from ignoring the abuses of a dr or asst coach.  

It’s not clear if anything can be done since the NCAA has decided to step aside and not be accountable.  I am posting this here because there needs to be an increase in awareness of this issue.  

It will be issue that needs to be addressed by the college football playoff committee and by any bowl games if played.  The only other opportunity to hold these conferences accountable would be for player’s parents to sue.