Per Schlissel: UM will not have football this fall if students not on campus

Submitted by crg on May 24th, 2020 at 8:53 AM

https://www.wsj.com/articles/university-of-michigan-president-takes-measured-approach-on-reopening-11590321600?mod=mhp

WSJ article just out this morning has a discussion with UM president Mark Schlissel (pointing out that he is also a formally trained immunologist)  - he believes a decision will be made in the next few weeks, but if students are not back on campus neither will football.

MileHighWolverine

May 24th, 2020 at 2:38 PM ^

The University isn't just shutting down and taking a year off while paying their employees. They are charging FULL CLIP for all students to then have an online learning experience vs. being on campus. Very magnanimous of them.

They have no idea if it's right but they know they can afford it so they do it. 40,000,000 other Americans, not so fortunate.

 

  

Go Blue Eyes

May 24th, 2020 at 9:41 AM ^

Absolutely!   Along with every state rep, senator, governor, etc. they all should have their pay cut in half or more.

I wonder if they are going to reduced tuition?  Doubtful.  An online education in NO way is the same as being on campus.  
 

Also how about the thousands and thousands of people who signed leases for this coming academic year?   Unless you’re in a dorm you’re stuck with your lease. 

AZBlue

May 24th, 2020 at 12:05 PM ^

Gene Smith said the same thing over a month ago.  So if you are giving him credit for something a Non-PhD athletic director for a University that cares for very little other than sports said first your bar for “leaders and best” is quite low.

My original planned comment for the topic was “water is wet” in regard to the statement, or in MI protestor lingo “Duh!”

JPC

May 24th, 2020 at 9:10 AM ^

Students will be "on campus." Universities make a ton of money on housing and meal plans. That doesn't mean classes will operate as usual. 

The Ivies supposedly will release a coordinated plan across all universities. 

crg

May 24th, 2020 at 9:29 AM ^

Some excerpts for those that can't see the article due to paywall:

  • “Any decision we make for this coming fall is likely going to be the case for the whole academic year. What’s going to be different in January?” he said, noting public health concerns could be even worse then as flu season ramps up during the cold-weather months.
  • Dr. Schlissel’s measured approach strikes a different tone than the rosy predictions made by many of his peers, both within the Big Ten athletic conference and across the country at major research institutions.
  • “I don’t want to set false expectations,” Dr. Schlissel said, noting that many of the more enthusiastic promises at other institutions still include fine print that the openings are subject to approval by local officials. “They’re really not as declarative as they appear.”
  • Dr. Schlissel said his leadership team is trying to figure out whether they can lower the risk of coronavirus exposure for students, staff and others on campus so that it’s “indistinguishable from their risk at home.” 
  • “If there is no on-campus instruction then there won’t be intercollegiate athletics, at least for Michigan,” said Dr. Schlissel, adding he had “some degree of doubt as to whether there will be college athletics [anywhere], at least in the fall.”

MRunner73

May 24th, 2020 at 9:39 AM ^

Will Michigan be the only B1G school not reopening? Purdue is a go. ND says it will start a few weeks early this fall. Just to name a few.

Let's wait and see.

crg

May 24th, 2020 at 9:46 AM ^

Addressed in the article.

Schlissel basically says many of the universities might be making promises they can't keep with their reopening plans.  Not only must the reopening be approved by state/local authorities, but the situation on the ground might not be safe enough come August/September.  Many factors will at play and no one can honestly say what *will* happen - only what their plans are for now.

uminks

May 25th, 2020 at 2:37 PM ^

This is where your governor will keep Universities in the state of Michigan shut down. So we will not have football but some other states will and the NCAA will not shut down the college football season, they will leave to each state. However, a lot of PAC 12 states will close down their universities, so I expect the PAC12 not to have a season. In the B1G, I could see MN, WI, UM, MSU PSU, Rutgers and Maryland remaining shutdown.  I think the remainder of the B1G will play conference games and the team with the best record, probably OSU, will represent the B1G in the playoffs. That will be sad having to watch OSU on TV and Michigan is not playing.

Unicycle Firefly

May 24th, 2020 at 9:44 AM ^

I'm fine with Michigan just not playing, even if SEC + OSU do. I've gotten really into the Bundesliga the last couple weeks, which will be back in the Fall. Also don't have to deal with Michigan losing 4-5 games and getting absolutely dumptrucked in the horseshoe this year, and the refund on my season ticket payment will be like a mini tax return. Wins all around as far as I'm concerned. 

Wolverine 73

May 24th, 2020 at 9:49 AM ^

College football should be seen as an adjunct to the college experience, not a minor pro league.  If you can’t have on campus college, you shouldn’t have college football.  

treetown

May 24th, 2020 at 10:02 AM ^

We will probably see many unexpected (non-illness) effects of the coronavirus on universities and colleges.

1. The NCAA will probably have to face a reckoning due to their inherent conflict of interest (what everyone else has long known). When it has been convenient, the NCAA used the Student part of student-athlete - typically to avoid giving up money to the kids. When it suits their economic interests, they emphasize the athlete part (in spectator sports only) so pad on games, extend seasons and schedule games in the middle of the week. And as we know from their lack of enforcement they don't really care about rule breaking. (that John Beilein is out of college coaching and Rick Pitino is still getting legitimate interest is a stark reminder of this)

2. For a lot of universities and colleges, this event has caused a lot of students to re-examine what they are getting for their tuition fees and what they are really seeking out of their studies. Are they at school because they really want to study something or are they there for the social part? 

3. Some schools will no doubt re-open because otherwise they'll go broke. And they fear the obvious - if so much is done on-line, why do the kids and families need to pay so much when they can go to something like the University of Phoenix which has been doing this for years. Keep expecting to see ads from that place touting this. It may also force a lot of schools to seriously make the live interaction time more meaningful.

4. 3 days ago, the University of California system Board of Regents voted to drop the use of SAT and ACT and will create their own test. I know that there is a huge history of the pros and cons of standardized testing, but the cynic in me wonders if it is to make easier to admit students whose families can pay full freight. (May 21, 2020)

Justibro

May 24th, 2020 at 10:13 AM ^

I'm curious as to what "all students back" really means. Is it as simple as dorms are open and allowing students to be on campus, Is it classes that can be online are online but all labs are smaller and in person. Does it mean all classes have to be back to their normal format, even the large lecture halls.  If it's the latter, we won't have football. If it's some combination of the first 2 than there is a real possibility we could. Key word: possibility

Biaka yomama

May 24th, 2020 at 10:31 AM ^

Hypothetically,  if football was played by most B1G schools but not us, wouldn't we lose a shit ton of players to transfer?

Navy Wolverine

May 24th, 2020 at 10:35 AM ^

If there is no football, does that mean non-revenue sports are cancelled too? If there is no football to fund the athletic department, how will the university fund the other sports? Will the coaches need to be furloughed? Will athletic scholarships need to be suspended? A lot of complicated issues for sure.

turtleboy

May 24th, 2020 at 10:50 AM ^

I mean how could they? If players are students and students can't go to campus, it would stand to reason that players couldn't go to campus as well. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, though, with many schools already announced allowing students on campus during the summer, while many others have yet to.

lhglrkwg

May 24th, 2020 at 12:18 PM ^

Seems like the postures of various universities will tell who really views football as 'student athletes' and who sees football as a minor league sport that is a revenue generating machine. I think UofM's take here is the only sensible decision if you view football players as student-athletes

Coldwater

May 24th, 2020 at 10:57 AM ^

To play or not to play can’t be up to the individual University President.  It’s got to come from the NCAA.   ALL teams play or NO teams play.  That’s it.