Momentum around a Winter B10 Football Season
Lots of smoke going around about a Winter Big 10 Football season.
"The Smoke" Summary: Games would start in early January, and they'd play anywhere from 6-10 games. End in March. Games would be played indoors at a range of different facilities in the Big Ten footprint. Multiple coaches, including Ryan Day and James Franklin, have said a winter season is preferred to spring. We are also hearing this from all levels: Penn State's AD has brought up a Winter season, and a Chancellor at Nebraska has stated that there is momentum amongst University Presidents around a winter season. Also, if you "read between the lines" from statements from Gene Smith and Kevin Warren, they emphasized it was a postponement (and not a cancellation), and that they will be forming a committee to return to competition as soon as possible.
Articles:
https://www.si.com/college/ohiostate/football/big-ten-considering-january-start-for-football
My Opinion: I would much prefer a Winter season to a Spring Season. One, it's better for the players, as they get more rest between seasons. Two: its closer than spring! I'm sure we all want to see Michigan play as soon as possible.
My hope would be that the college football playoff would delay playing until Mid March, to make our season and everyone else's season as legitimate as possible. This would allow us to crown a true college football champion.
(My apologies for the double diary/mgoboard post...the diary post was unintended. Mods feel free to delete the diary duplicate post).
August 20th, 2020 at 11:37 AM ^
That will be right in the heart of COVID season! Nope.
August 20th, 2020 at 11:49 AM ^
What are you basing that on? Pretty much every prediction has been wildly off. Why not plan for it knowing that things may need reconsideration as this admittedly fluid situation develops. It’s only August. We’ve only lived with covid for 6 months. Who knows what could come down the pipe in the next 3 months in terms of rapid (pregnancy test like) covid tests or even a strong therapeutic that takes the top end off of the this disease?
August 20th, 2020 at 11:56 AM ^
Unless the whole country falls under one plan i don't see this working out. No one wants to be held responsible for any decision. White house punted to the governors. Governors punted on schooling leaving it up to each district. Yeah they will all of a sudden rally together in the next 4 months.
August 20th, 2020 at 3:41 PM ^
I don't necessarily disagree that we need better centralized planning on this. But a few points in response to your post:
1. "White house punted to the governors." Actually, early on in the pandemic, Trump issued a number of proclamations and edicts, and the governors of the opposing party pushed back touting (correctly) states rights. If it were up to Trump, I have a feeling that he would be more than happy to set a national strategy and implement it. Love him or hate him, he's not exactly adverse to being a dictator. Many would not like that result, though, since his strategy would largely be "open it up." Note: not commenting one way or the other on which side is right, just that the white house only punted to governors when governors said that he had no right to mandate local behavior and laws.
2. The whole country cannot be under one plan because the whole country is in different phases of the infection. So, while it makes sense now to slow down the reopening of Georgia and other hot spots, that does not make sense for NY, which has less than 00.8% positivity rate and almost non-existent spread.
3. I don't expect that the whole country will "rally together" in the next four months. What I do expect is that each locality in the country is going to get hit at some point from March 2020 through the end of December 2020. But, the areas that were hit hard with rampant spread seem not to experience a second hit, at least so far, even when lock down measures are removed. See Italy, New York (yes, some restrictions remain, but as I have said in other posts, so many people are gathering indoors - whether in homes, restaurants or elsewhere - without masks, and kids are traveling in huge packs, yet our numbers are the best in the nation), Washington State, Mass, Spain, China, Michigan. That's not saying that there won't be cases, but in areas that were already hit, those cases may remain relatively muted in number. Moreover, treatments are continuing to improve, and a vaccine might just be on the horizon. So, yes, in 4 months, I think that we may be in a much better situation, nationally, than we are now. Also note that over the past 3 weeks, national cases have declined sharply as the disease has, to some extent, started to burn through Florida, Arizona, the Carolinas and Tennessee (with minimal lock downs, I will note).
August 20th, 2020 at 12:41 PM ^
Which predictions were wildly off? The ones from the guy claiming it would magically disappear and be gone by April, or the scientists that said we would have 200k dead americans this year and waves would roll around the country as we relaxed measures and had to keep shutting things down?
Because, the scientists have been surprisingly correct
August 20th, 2020 at 1:18 PM ^
Estimate from Imperial College London, source for Doctors Fauci and Birx, I believe was that 500,000 Brits would succumb to the disease this year while the USA would suffer upwards of 2,000,000.
August 20th, 2020 at 1:35 PM ^
Those numbers you cite are from their model scenario that included ZERO mitigation efforts. That would be their estimate if not a single mask were worn and nobody avoided any contact at all
"The most recent survey, taken on March 16 and 17, found that, as a group, the experts think that as of March 15, only 12 percent of infections in the U.S. had been reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They think there’s a 73 percent chance of a second wave of hospitalizations this fall. And they expect approximately 200,000 deaths in the U.S. by the end of the year"
August 20th, 2020 at 2:37 PM ^
Actually, it is not true that "Pretty much every prediction has been wildly off."
Predictions have been fairly good. See the linked analysis:
https://markpanaggio.wixsite.com/home/post/are-the-models-actually-wrong?
August 20th, 2020 at 12:07 PM ^
COVID might become a seasonal virus but right now it's passing through the population for the first time, and there isn't a season for that.
Having more people indoors in the winter might increase spread somewhat but that really happens in large gatherings, which we're not likely to have too many of.
Ultimately what matters is that you test and monitor the players continually.
August 20th, 2020 at 12:11 PM ^
Why would it suddenly become seasonal?
August 20th, 2020 at 1:22 PM ^
It is amazing how scientists don't know for sure why the flu is seasonal in non-equatorial countries. Lot's of good theories though!
August 20th, 2020 at 3:05 PM ^
I could be wrong but I thought it was pretty well known that it was temperature and humidity.
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2014/the-reason-for-the-season-why-flu-strikes-in-winter/
August 20th, 2020 at 11:38 AM ^
Fine, I'll move my comment on your diary to here.
A winter season would be great if true. Hopefully it gets announced soon so that we don't have more players declare for the draft and leave school who are therefore ineligible to play. Does anyone know if Mayfield would still be allowed to come back to the team or has that ship sailed?
August 20th, 2020 at 11:43 AM ^
Penn State's AD said a schedule could be released in the next week.
Also, I would assume we will see quite a few top 100 draft projected players opt out across the league.
August 20th, 2020 at 12:31 PM ^
Isn't the rule that if you don't hire an agent you can come back? This is done in basketball all the time.
August 20th, 2020 at 12:33 PM ^
Yeah, I think so. I was more wondering if he had officially dropped out of school and was thus ineligible to come back and play.
August 20th, 2020 at 11:39 AM ^
It's a pipe dream, but Wisconsin and Michigan playing in Marquette at the Superior Dome would be top cheddar.
They might have to get team snowmobiles to make it all the way...
August 20th, 2020 at 11:40 AM ^
So after Clemson vs Alabama determines the National Championship ... then the Big Ten starts the season? lol
August 20th, 2020 at 12:43 PM ^
Because that would be different than the last half+ decade.
August 20th, 2020 at 11:44 AM ^
I think the only plan that could work would be regionalized bubble system (Detroit, Minneapolis, Indianapolis)
Three sets of four teams complete with online education, practice time, food, housing, etc. Two week quarantine period upon entering the bubble and then a 3 week round robin. After the round robin you move the top, middle and lower teams to a new bubble and follow the same routine. All in all - 10 week bubble with six games and a Big Ten Champion.
August 20th, 2020 at 11:51 AM ^
That’s not half bad! Well thought out and practical, especially with the online education component. I’d get behind this. Although I would like to see more than 6 games, at this point it would be awesome to get that.
August 20th, 2020 at 12:32 PM ^
"Three sets of four teams..." So a perfect time to kick out Rutgers and Maryland.
August 20th, 2020 at 12:53 PM ^
Exactly
August 20th, 2020 at 2:37 PM ^
Or replace Maryland with Nebraska, because fuck Scott Frost.
August 20th, 2020 at 11:52 AM ^
Make plans, I guess. Gives people something to do now, and then something to do later, when the plans all get scrapped and new ones need to get made.
August 20th, 2020 at 1:36 PM ^
Pretty sure you just described every day life these days.
August 20th, 2020 at 11:58 AM ^
What will be possible in January is entirely unknowable today. They can make plans that are more guesses, akin to a blindfolded dart toss after doing bat spins, but until we have a competent, effective, collectively followed, comprehensive virus response this county is firmly lodged in "we don't know what the fuck is going on or what the fuck will be going on".
You want it otherwise, I suggest you vote for competent leadership in November.
August 20th, 2020 at 11:59 AM ^
How many deaths are acceptable for sports? Talking all diseases here, not just Covid. If the answer is zero, we should never play sports, nor take masks off the rest of our lives. And wearing a mask isn't a big deal, is it? (Looking at all the folks in favor of mask mandates.) So, why not mandate masks forever? It will save lives... from all diseases!
On the other hand, if the answer is not zero, where is the line drawn? We're at, what, approaching 200k deaths in the US at this point? With also a fair (but not complete) understanding of medium term side effects. Is that acceptable or not? Sounds like the general consensus is no, hence the mask mandates and cancellations. I would say yes. My line would be more like 1000k or so. I feel that's the right level of severity to start shutting down aspects of the country. (Of course, every individual would have their own choice of how much risk they want to expose themselves to.) I'm really curious where you all feel the line should be drawn. There really isn't a wrong answer.... so long as your proposed actions and solutions don't contradict your answer.
It's a study of risk management. I work in the space industry, and if we accepted zero astronaut deaths, we'd never launch. So, there has GOT to be a line. We have one in our industry. Interestingly enough, I've never heard the media, or any leaders, or any folks on this board, give an answer to their line. To avoid giving an answer is to avoid acknowledging the big picture. Oh, and the "novelty" or temporary nature (if that even winds up being the case) of this virus is irrelevant to the question. The question is about how many deaths are acceptable before you take certain actions.
So, if you are in favor of cancelling the Big 10 season (or if you are not)..... where is your line?
August 20th, 2020 at 12:19 PM ^
Here it is again - 'we should let people die so we can play sports because they die from everything, anyway!'... What a dumb argument. Risk management involves a helluva lot more than just the likelihood of someone dying.
And I call bullshit that NASA will gladly accept the death of an astronaut just to keep flying. If that were the case, a crapload more astronauts would be dead today.
August 20th, 2020 at 12:31 PM ^
1. Then where's your line?
2. There are Probability Risk Assessment (PRA) numbers our NASA team works with on a regular basis that take into account astronaut death likelihood, and whether we should attempt to reduce that probability (by adding additional cost, weight, and complexity to the vehicle), or not.
Calling it a dumb argument (effectively burying your head in the sand to the topic) doesn't make it not exist.
August 20th, 2020 at 12:50 PM ^
- I have no line. It's my place to decide how many deaths are acceptable for CFB players during a pandemic. Nor is it yours. The simple fact that you insist on one, along with your belief that 1,000,000 dead is fine, tells me that there is no number high enough to satiate your need for football.
- I understand what risk management is, but I'm not sure that you do. Yay for you that you know there are probabilities involved. But again, risk management goes much farther than deciding to do something simply on the basis of death. Death is always the worst case situation, and most decisions are not made based on whether someone will die, or not. Risk management is all about not having to make that decision...
August 20th, 2020 at 1:06 PM ^
1. I think you meant it's *not* your place to decide. It's not mine either. But it's just a question (jeez). I don't decide a lot of things that happen in this world, but I have opinions on them. I'm asking for yours. I guess with that attitude, you don't have an opinion on anything in this world beyond your own life? After all, it's not for you to decide.
And FYI, deep down I really don't care if football happens or not. I mean, I'd like it too, but it's just a game. It's not important in the big picture. My answer/opinion of 1,000k is just a rough order or magnitude where I would start shutting down the country (football excluded).
2. Well, this sentence in your original reply makes me think you don't understand risk mgmt: "And I call bullshit that NASA will gladly accept the death of an astronaut just to keep flying." I didn't want to lay it on you, but that's not how risk mgmt works. You're not accepting death (or any other consequence) to keep flying. You're balancing the consequences of a condition vs. the cost of addressing that condition before it happens. For example, in human spaceflight, astronauts will die if an oxygen pump fails. (Yes, we'll use death as the consequence here because it's an easy one. But you're right there are infinite consequences to things in this world besides death.) We can either a) spend money to improve that pump b) add redundancy to that pump so if it fails, a backup takes over or c) live with the risk because the cost, weight, or complexity of addressing this possible condition/consequence pairing is just not reasonable. Yes, it's totally true that such a number (and other numbers like it) exist! Worked with it two weeks ago, in fact.
August 20th, 2020 at 1:21 PM ^
- Yep, should have typed *not*... I don't believe any death from a pandemic disease is worth the risk of playing football. I also wish we could do what other countries did - deal with this shit and get past it. Instead, we continue half-assing a response and arguing about half-assing a response. The result is that we now being treated like a Third-World country everywhere else in the world. We can travel to 12 countries - and those are largely Trump's "shithole countries". So you think losing 1,000,000 people (or is it 100K? - make up your mind) is okay, I think we shouldn't have lost anywhere near 180,000.
- "c) live with the risk because the cost, weight, or complexity of addressing this possible condition/consequence pairing is just not reasonable." So you say NASA will accept death...
This is a circular argument that can keep going around hundreds of times, and I'm not doing that. So I guess you can assign a number of players that are free to die before anything is done. I don't believe anyone can say that any number of deaths is worth football, nor do I believe that death alone is the bar that football (or any other sport) needs to cross.
August 20th, 2020 at 12:54 PM ^
The risk of sending people to fucking space in a rocket is not at all comparable to the risk of people getting sick and dying while going to get groceries.
August 20th, 2020 at 1:08 PM ^
But the science processes and reasoning behind coming to a conclusion is the same. The only differences are the inputs and outputs.
August 20th, 2020 at 12:22 PM ^
You would let 1,000,000 people die before even starting to shut down aspects of the economy? Holy shit. Please stay away from any discussions on public health policy. Forever.
August 20th, 2020 at 12:36 PM ^
Where's your line?
August 20th, 2020 at 12:30 PM ^
Hey asshole, it's called the missing cosmonaut theory, not the missing astronaut theory.
I also work in the space industry, and you should never, ever be in charge of any decision related to human spaceflight. Risk is obviously inherent in anything related to space, but your attitude is completely fucked.
August 20th, 2020 at 12:35 PM ^
Ever work with PRA numbers? (See reply post above to 1VaBlue1 for context.) If you did, you'd understand the decisions that are made based on those numbers. It's not something taken lightly. But hey, at least your low-brow, attack-natured reply confirms you are someone to just be ignored.
August 20th, 2020 at 1:14 PM ^
It's not something taken lightly
And yet here you are, taking it lightly. Blabbering on about "what's your number?" completely shows your ass...the post about risk makes you superficially look like you're interested in doing the work yourself to determine a legitimate risk parameter to compare a failing oxygen pump to COVID, but this "what's your number" bullshit tells everyone that you don't actually give a fuck.
August 20th, 2020 at 1:43 PM ^
This the same space industry that on three separate occasions absolutely knew they were putting lives at substantial risk and decided to ignore evidence and advice? I'll give NASA the benefit of doubt for Apollo 1, that was a calculated risk weighing the factors of weight, complexity, and the very real risk of decompression sickness. However, both Challenger and Columbia disasters were about rolling the dice, not risk management assessment.
August 20th, 2020 at 12:34 PM ^
Just off the top of my head, I might have said 100K or 50K initially. 100K seems like a huge number. When we initially heard the projections of 200K, I think most of us viewed that as "worst case" scenario and realistically thought we would never approach that. But of course we are approaching the 200K number and still a significant part of the population is unable to come to terms with wearing a mask unless ordered to do so. Your 1M number seems absurdly high to me but given where we are at, hey it may be achievable.
So I don't disagree with your concept but I am startled by the size of your numbers. The idea of saying let's keep things open if we ONLY project 900K deaths seems...unfortunate.
August 20th, 2020 at 12:42 PM ^
I commend you, sir, for having the spine to give even an estimate!!
It's a balance of deaths vs. freedoms, convenience, resources, economy, etc. You or others may feel my number is high. That's totally fine! It's this aspect of the conversation that no-one is willing to discuss, though. Thank you for having a thoughtful (and civil) reply!
August 20th, 2020 at 12:51 PM ^
Both of you appear completely oblivious to the concept of R0. When you're dealing with a contagious illness, you can't expect deaths to stop immediately after a preventative measure is taken. It's not a switch you can turn off. Setting an action limit at 1,000,000 deaths is objectively insane. At that point, you'd be guaranteeing millions of additional deaths since that figure would imply a total loss of containment across the country.
You arguing that uncertainly is irrelevant is setting loss tolerance is the cherry on top of this shit cake.
August 20th, 2020 at 1:19 PM ^
We're talking asymptotic deaths. Meaning, approaching a number after time has passed.
Leaders in this country have already set a limit in their heads that we've already passed, or else they wouldn't have enacted the laws they have (mask mandates, for example). It's the same abstract death number concept/limit we're talking here. We're not doing anything different than decision makers in this country do. We're just talking about it out loud here.
August 20th, 2020 at 2:30 PM ^
First, my "numbers" were based on projections, not actual deaths. E.g. if your current state and current framework is projected to result in more than say 50K deaths EVENTUALLY, then you need to make changes and find better solutions, adopt further restrictions, etc. I was not saying you don't do anything until you hit 50 or 100K. Back in March when we were getting projections that deaths could reach 200K based on existing parameters, my view was that number was unacceptable even with the measures adopted to that point and that we needed to make drastic changes to get that figure down to 50-100K or less.
August 20th, 2020 at 1:11 PM ^
Why should anyone treat you civilly? We can SEE your post history. NOTHING you've posted in the past several months has been in good faith, Shapiro wannabe.
That your number is horrifyingly high isn't some inconsequential just-for-fun fucking game. I hope you realize how revolting you are someday.
August 20th, 2020 at 1:23 PM ^
LOL! I'd stand by my post history as thought provoking and civil (most of the time) any day. And thank you for the Shapiro comparison! I don't agree with everything he says, but I respect his reasoning and civil debates.
Look, just because you don't agree with me, doesn't mean you have to stoop to the level you have. Be happy. :-)
August 20th, 2020 at 1:26 PM ^
This is an incredibly revealing comment.
I take life seriously, thank you, especially matters like this. I can't stand people like you who walk through life treating everything like it's a fucking game.
Civility is way, way overrated.
August 20th, 2020 at 3:33 PM ^
Yep, this little exchange here says all that anyone needs to know about you, and I'm not even referring to the Shapiro comment. Thought provoking... no. Rage inducing. Head smacking ignorance.
Do you know how many people would have to be hospitalized in the ICU to get to 1m deaths? Hint; we don't have enough capacity to hold them. And how many would have to be infected, to hit those numbers? Your entire argument is beyond insane. It merits no reasonable response, yet you're so sure of yourself.
Thought provoking... ok.