Via Jason Kersey: Lincoln Riley says OU won't be releasing football COVID testing data moving forward because of "competitive advantage"
September 8th, 2020 at 1:57 PM ^
smart decision by him.
September 8th, 2020 at 2:02 PM ^
Makes sense. I mean, do you think Genghis Khan sent a message ahead to the Turks saying, “Hey, we’re on our way! Taking the Silk Road. The potholes are a nightmare, am I right??? LOL. Anywho, a few guys in our camp started bleeding from the eyeballs and rectums (or is it recti??) last night. Might want to have some antibiotics on hand after we decimate your civilization, as it’s probably the Black Death! Love, Genghis”
September 8th, 2020 at 2:19 PM ^
Bleeding from the ass isn't necessarily due to the plague. Just sayin'
September 8th, 2020 at 2:23 PM ^
"Um, you might have two things..."
September 9th, 2020 at 9:00 AM ^
"Doctor, what's your diagnosis?"
"Mercury is in Uranus."
"I don't believe in astrology."
"Neither do I. The thermometer broke."
September 8th, 2020 at 2:20 PM ^
You are comparing a game of football to fighting for the lives of your family, country, or dictator.
September 8th, 2020 at 2:22 PM ^
I think you are missing the rich sarcasm in my post alluding to how absurd it is to treat college football like an invasion from the Golden Horde... ;-)
September 8th, 2020 at 2:25 PM ^
Ahh, but of course. Perhaps I woke up snarky this morning! :)
September 8th, 2020 at 2:04 PM ^
You can’t catch a torn acl or pulled hamstring from breathing on another player, just saying.
September 8th, 2020 at 2:19 PM ^
they are still testing players and holding them out if a positive occurs and taking the correct action and following protocols. They just aren't publicly saying specific players.
September 8th, 2020 at 2:24 PM ^
But who is holding them accountable to not cheat because of “competitive advantage”? The AD in most schools never has without transparency and standards set by a higher authority. How many “close contacts” of a positive case will be a judgement call?
September 8th, 2020 at 2:40 PM ^
How does this make any difference? If they wanted to play a sick kid, then they just play a sick kid and not tell you.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:29 PM ^
Yep, blue is correct. Kids have played with the flu before. Flu has a bigger impact on these kids than this virus does. Not a biggie to me.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:34 PM ^
Wow. Read more because you're kinda missing the larger point. It's not about how it affects that kid so much as it about containing the spread.
September 8th, 2020 at 4:15 PM ^
September 8th, 2020 at 8:52 PM ^
The flu has less of an impact if you are less than 15. Football players are older than 15.. there have been 300 Covid deaths in the 15 to 24 age group this year. There have only been 52 deaths in that age category from the flu. Covid is less likely to kill you if you are younger, but for most high school and college aged kids, covid has a bigger impact.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:30 PM ^
That’s exactly the problem. Let’s say you are that coach that plays your center who is supposed to be quarantined. You play Michigan where the coach and kids do the right thing, the kids skip the parties, every one is tested, and the DL is all in excellent health. Not only did you violate the spirit of competition and fair play (maybe even win the game), you also infected M’s entire DL, put them at risk, and took them out of the next two games. This could really get out of hand if a middling SEC team plays infected players ruining a top 10 teams season. If this is what you would do as a coach, then you would likely be one of those former players that sticks your finger through the opposing teams 5 star RB’s eardrum (or twist his ACL) at the bottom of a pile. That’s the scum “win at ALL costs” mentality that requires oversight.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:42 PM ^
Meh...still an overreaction. This whole thing is an overreaction as evidenced by the thousands of players playing every week now. The shelter dwellers ruined the Big 10 & PAC 12 already, let the rest of football play!
September 8th, 2020 at 4:19 PM ^
Not disagreeing with you, but you are missing my point. If Oklahoma wants to play an infected player, they are going to play an infected player and Riley not telling the other team isn't going to make a difference. Either way it falls on the team to follow the rules.
September 8th, 2020 at 9:41 PM ^
You think OSU is holding Justin Fields out if he's contact traced before playing Michigan? Not positive. Contact traced out using OSUs protocols that they'd used all year.
This is why the B1G was going to mandatory independent testing. Because there is NO SHOT Fields would miss the game.
September 8th, 2020 at 4:38 PM ^
i guess i missed the part where he said he’d keep playing covid-positive players.
September 8th, 2020 at 5:12 PM ^
double post.
September 8th, 2020 at 2:08 PM ^
I get it. It is private health information, after all. I just hope they are not dumb enough to hide positive cases. It’s a difficult spot because your players’ COVID status affects the other team if you’re obfuscating numbers.
But I get it. It’s technically not covered by HIPAA because there’s no billing; but, in the spirit of HIPAA, it’s not professional to release a student’s private health info.
September 8th, 2020 at 2:49 PM ^
You were almost there -- it has nothing to do with HIPAA, so that's the end of its relevance.
A traumatic brain injury (aka concussion), a pulled hamstring, mono, broken leg, etc are all "private" health info regularly shared by college teams. There is no reason to treat COVID any differently.
In fact, you could argue it is more important that people know Johnny Lineman has it, so if they were in close contact with him, they can isolate themselves and/or get a test.
September 8th, 2020 at 2:55 PM ^
"not dumb enough"
You new around here or something? Look around.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:00 PM ^
"I just hope they are not dumb enough to hide positive cases."
Anybody who thinks that there aren't more than a few programs amongst the P5 who will very gladly hide info involving infections of key players before big games is living in a fantasy world.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:09 PM ^
I can think of one example that is south of Ann Arbor. I don't want to say more in order to protect that school's privacy.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:22 PM ^
You mean THE school's privacy
September 8th, 2020 at 3:37 PM ^
This is one of the reasons that these decisions shouldn't be up to coaches. And I don't mean that as a criticism. A coach has to want to coach. An astronaut has to want to launch. A boxer has to want to fight. And that's why there have to be other people to say no if necessary.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:07 PM ^
It's not covered by HIPAA because schools aren't covered entities (or really any other type of entity as it relates to HIPAA) in this circumstance. The medical system they use (oftentimes tied to the school itself) is bound by confidentiality rules, but they aren't the ones making these announcements). Now, schools claim that FERPA applies here as well and that could be a stronger argument but honestly I'm not well-versed enough in this area of the regulations to know if that holds up.
Regardless, my bigger concern is that if schools aren't going to announce someone is out due to COVID-19 (which isn't that hard to figure out anyway because if the guy doesn't show any outward signs of injury and does the "he's out for a week, he's back a week later" dance you can usually guess why), it's an easy jump to just stop testing guys. I know that sounds cynical but plausible deniability is a hell of a drug, and these coaches want to make the playoffs.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:41 PM ^
I agree.
I'm not so worried about Lincoln Riley (I don't follow him closely, but he made a number of comments about COVID early, and let's just say he seemed directly the opposite of Mike "The players are here to make us revenue" Gundy) but for some other coaches, I could see it being very easy to say,
"If we don't do a lot of tests, we won't have a lot of cases" and leave it at that.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:48 PM ^
I think it’s spelled hippo.
/s
September 8th, 2020 at 2:08 PM ^
Do what the Pats do and just list everyone on the roster as "questionable" every week.
September 8th, 2020 at 2:18 PM ^
And so are recruiting violations a competitive advantage. They sure want to cover those up as well.
This is where the NCAA used to have some balls and would issue semi weekly testing and notification requirements that protect player privacy and risk while insuring there are no players on the field that shouldn't be. And if a school has major covid problems that is the failure of the school’s football program and not something to cover up for “competing” in a game.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:07 PM ^
"...the NCAA used to have some balls..."
Wow, you must be older than I thought! The last time the NCAA had any balls was when it was forced to deal with SMU by SMU's own hand. It's been a sniveling little blowhard since then, unwilling to hurt a school to enforce rules to the point that it is now universally (and rightfully) mocked.
UNC, Auburn, Arkansas, Kansas, etc are all laughing at the NCAA.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:24 PM ^
smart man.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:30 PM ^
I don't understand either side of this argument.
September 8th, 2020 at 3:34 PM ^
What’s next? Withholding the depth chart?
September 8th, 2020 at 4:07 PM ^
Meh I probably wouldn’t either. I want my opponent having to prepare the whole week to play anyone my team has to offer.
As long as he’s not playing anyone who got infected before they have a chance to recover, then I don’t see an issue with this.
September 8th, 2020 at 4:14 PM ^
I don't blame Riley one bit for what he does (assuming he doesn't try to hid positives or something). This should have all been mandated by the conferences & NCAA anyway and not left up to the individual schools. That they have the option to choose to not release testing data is the bigger issue, IMO.
September 8th, 2020 at 4:28 PM ^
As long as it gets reported to the right authorities and precautions are made, identifying the players doesn't matter
My concern is that places like Alabama and Clemson are gonna make sick players play anyway and not tell anyone they're infected
September 8th, 2020 at 4:35 PM ^
This is why people calling for transparency about the decision to cancel the season falls on deaf ears IMO. It is mind boggling to me that conferences aren’t at least mandating certain info be reported, especially since the NCAA isn’t stepping up. Surely some of the info that schools are hiding is playing into the B1G presidents’ decision to cancel.
September 8th, 2020 at 4:44 PM ^
makes sense
September 8th, 2020 at 4:56 PM ^
ah yes, accountability is a "competitive advantage" now.
September 8th, 2020 at 4:59 PM ^
This was the inevitable corrolary to the decision to play. Hide the data so people won't know how reckless the decision may have been.
September 8th, 2020 at 5:19 PM ^
Cuz what's more important in life than winning a game?
September 9th, 2020 at 8:56 AM ^
If he is planning on playing players who are positive or who have potentially had exposure, he is truly a scumbag and would likely never recover as a coach if things went bad/got revealed.
If he simply doesn't want the other team to know that he will be fielding his defensive line as his offensive line, then more power to him and good luck with that "competitive advantage".