|
Post by atownbeaver on Aug 25, 2020 14:13:21 GMT -8
I sure bet the Pac-12 coaches are not excited whatsoever about this development. I also don't think piling on the south for their pandemic strategy is even handled evenly here. Are people dying in the south because hospitals are overflowing? If not, then business as usual was the overall strategy from the get-go; the shutdowns were not intended to stop spread altogether, it was to 'flatten the curve' - meaning reduce infection rates so that local hospitals are not overwhelmed. If the goalposts have been moved to a 100% containment strategy, I missed the memo, as did the country, because at no point has any federal or state initiative had any chance of accomplishing that, nor has it been the stated goal by those governments. In reality, the there is a strong possibility that things go just fine with the SEC's football season, some campuses close periodically to again flatten the curve for the local health care systems case load, and they reach herd immunity regionally, well ahead of the other regions. Pointing their approach as being due to "valuing football more highly than others" while generally true, is a disingenuous argument for their general approach to the pandemic, IMO. I am sure a lot of people are upset about it. I am annoyed as well. I LOVE the fall. my favorite time of year for a large number of reasons. Football, of course, is a big one. My big problem here is more or less what I am going to call toxic masculinity. The idea of doing something in the face of some measure of danger for no other reason than to prove your toughness. That is, in my opinion, ludicrously stupid. It isn't just with football, but with the entire pursuit of all "policy" related to covid. But I will keep it on football and not the larger economy... I have no real problem with an SEC or other school that thinks they can play football safely giving it a go. I have my doubts they will succeed, but I won't root for their failure. I just think it is unnecessarily risky, but at the same time I am not going to pretend I actually care about the well being of people I do not know, more so than I care about the general well being of all people in general. That is only to say I don't want to see anybody be hurt or be sick, as a general principle. So at the end of the day, if an SEC football game is on ESPN, you bet your ass I will watch it. But what I support is the idea of simply delaying football a few months for a number or reasons. the big one is we basically, 99.9% are assured a vaccine by the end of the year. There are too many candidates with too strong of previous trials for one of them to not come through. I cannot stress enough how much this changes the paradigm. A vaccine comes out, is in use for a month or two and then we kick off games that: 1. have way, way, way reduced risk of COVID exposure for players and fans. 2. OH, fans. hey they can be there! 3. More fans = Mo' Money 4. Zero risk of just cancelling the season after a week or two anyway because half your starters got COVID! It just makes sense. Nobody really knows what happens if Trevor Lawrence tests positive at some point. Even if he is barely sick or has no symptoms at all, he misses two games. Like... is that fair? Is it fair to Lawrence? is it fair to the fans? Replace Lawrence with any other big name or star player. I understand there is always risk that at any snap, in a game or at practice, a player can have a career ending injury... it is that fact that makes me question why you want to pile more risk on top. Important players ARE going to get infected at some point this season. If isn't if, it is when. I have no doubt those players will be "fine". Other than missing a game or two, or three. Or, if they are really unlucky, they are not fine... But honestly, to me, this whole issue is less about safety, not that it isn't important, and more about just being able to play some f%#*ing football without worrying about the other stuff. So do it in January... Why does it HAVE to be September? The issue I have with the defiance shown by other schools (in a toxic masculinity display... really. A show that they won't let some virus disrupt them!) is what really is their reward for the risk? To play in half empty (or worse) stadiums under the blanket of controversy with the ongoing risk to just call the whole thing off anyways? To me the schools wanting to play are not deciding that from a logical decision making process, but rather an emotionally defiant one. One born of frustration and anger that COVID has taken over our lives, one born from the deep seated need to be back to normal. Other schools are pretending life is normal. faking it. But you can't fake your way out of this one. I, personally, would rather let the scientists and companies that are very eager to make billions of dollars, do their thing, give us a vaccine, let me be protected, then I can show up to a game an watch my team in peace. I don't give a s%#t if it is January or September, I will root for the Beavers any time, any place. This has nothing to do with toughness. Nothing to do with being a quitter and everything to do with simply being logical and pragmatic.
|
|
|
Post by ochobeavo on Aug 25, 2020 14:18:27 GMT -8
I also can't verify, but I think the 10,000 seat better than most Division 1-A stadiums that I saw in a 4000 resident town might indicate that its value there is slightly higher. I went to a smallish college in Texas (8-10,000 students).... We played our home football games at the local HIGH SCHOOL'S Stadium, smh Yep. True to form, everything bigger in Texas.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Aug 25, 2020 14:34:56 GMT -8
I went to a smallish college in Texas (8-10,000 students).... We played our home football games at the local HIGH SCHOOL'S Stadium, smh Yep. True to form, everything bigger in Texas. Texas Tech going with old school immunization. Out there playing 4D chess. I mean, 21 cases is like a quarter of your football team...
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Aug 25, 2020 14:59:15 GMT -8
Yep. True to form, everything bigger in Texas. Texas Tech going with old school immunization. Out there playing 4D chess. I mean, 21 cases is like a quarter of your football team... It’s just a flesh wound.
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Aug 25, 2020 15:03:48 GMT -8
From Seattle Times: “There’s already negative recruiting going on,” 247Sports national recruiting editor Brandon Huffman said. “It’s like, ‘Hey, we care about your kid’s wellbeing, but we also still care about football more than the Pac-12 does or the Big Ten does. We’re taking all these precautionary measures, but we’re also still supporting these kids’ efforts to play football.’ “So I think now they’re going to have to deal with the already permeating feeling that football is just not as serious out west. I think the good schools in the Pac-12 are able to offset that. “… Will the Pac-12 even have a spring season? Can you see their states saying, ‘No, we’re not playing in the spring either’? If they end up losing a year, I’m not saying the Pac-12 is going to become a Group of Five conference. But do they pretty much solidify their standing as the least relevant Power Five conference if they don’t play football in the spring? Probably.” “One of the initial responses I heard from the (Pac-12) conference’s fans was, ‘Oh, we’re going to have an easier time recruiting.’ Well, no you’re not,” Huffman said. “The NCAA keeps pushing back the dead period. Coaches have all this free time but no ability to get on the road and evaluate and recruit. I looked at it like with my kids doing activities and playing sports in the spring and summer. I’ve never been more available to go to their events, but if there are no events to go to, then it really doesn’t make a difference. “That’s kind of how coaches are. If they’re not allowed to get on the road, yeah, they’re not having to game plan for State U this weekend. So they can watch more (highlight tapes) and do more zoom calls and all that. But if they’re not getting the face time in person with these guys it really is all for naught.” But if they play, the Pac-12’s omnipresent perception problem will be amplified even more. www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-husky-football/theres-already-negative-recruiting-going-on-how-fall-sec-acc-and-big-12-football-seasons-would-impact-pac-12-recruiting/If the Pac 12 sucks so much, how did Oregon net a 5* quarterback and the 5th best recruiting class in the nation? Pretty sure recruitment at Ohio State won’t skip a beat either. I suspect the issues that the Pac 12 have with recruiting are older than the COVID pandemic.
|
|
|
Post by ochobeavo on Aug 25, 2020 15:21:37 GMT -8
Yep. True to form, everything bigger in Texas. Texas Tech going with old school immunization. Out there playing 4D chess. I mean, 21 cases is like a quarter of your football team... "NEXT MAN UP... err. NEXT 21 MANS UP" (spits into can)
|
|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Aug 25, 2020 15:26:03 GMT -8
I sure bet the Pac-12 coaches are not excited whatsoever about this development. I also don't think piling on the south for their pandemic strategy is even handled evenly here. Are people dying in the south because hospitals are overflowing? If not, then business as usual was the overall strategy from the get-go; the shutdowns were not intended to stop spread altogether, it was to 'flatten the curve' - meaning reduce infection rates so that local hospitals are not overwhelmed. If the goalposts have been moved to a 100% containment strategy, I missed the memo, as did the country, because at no point has any federal or state initiative had any chance of accomplishing that, nor has it been the stated goal by those governments. In reality, the there is a strong possibility that things go just fine with the SEC's football season, some campuses close periodically to again flatten the curve for the local health care systems case load, and they reach herd immunity regionally, well ahead of the other regions. Pointing their approach as being due to "valuing football more highly than others" while generally true, is a disingenuous argument for their general approach to the pandemic, IMO. I am sure a lot of people are upset about it. I am annoyed as well. I LOVE the fall. my favorite time of year for a large number of reasons. Football, of course, is a big one. My big problem here is more or less what I am going to call toxic masculinity. The idea of doing something in the face of some measure of danger for no other reason than to prove your toughness. That is, in my opinion, ludicrously stupid. It isn't just with football, but with the entire pursuit of all "policy" related to covid. But I will keep it on football and not the larger economy... I have no real problem with an SEC or other school that thinks they can play football safely giving it a go. I have my doubts they will succeed, but I won't root for their failure. I just think it is unnecessarily risky, but at the same time I am not going to pretend I actually care about the well being of people I do not know, more so than I care about the general well being of all people in general. That is only to say I don't want to see anybody be hurt or be sick, as a general principle. So at the end of the day, if an SEC football game is on ESPN, you bet your ass I will watch it. But what I support is the idea of simply delaying football a few months for a number or reasons. the big one is we basically, 99.9% are assured a vaccine by the end of the year. There are too many candidates with too strong of previous trials for one of them to not come through. I cannot stress enough how much this changes the paradigm. A vaccine comes out, is in use for a month or two and then we kick off games that: 1. have way, way, way reduced risk of COVID exposure for players and fans. 2. OH, fans. hey they can be there! 3. More fans = Mo' Money 4. Zero risk of just cancelling the season after a week or two anyway because half your starters got COVID! It just makes sense. Nobody really knows what happens if Trevor Lawrence tests positive at some point. Even if he is barely sick or has no symptoms at all, he misses two games. Like... is that fair? Is it fair to Lawrence? is it fair to the fans? Replace Lawrence with any other big name or star player. I understand there is always risk that at any snap, in a game or at practice, a player can have a career ending injury... it is that fact that makes me question why you want to pile more risk on top. Important players ARE going to get infected at some point this season. If isn't if, it is when. I have no doubt those players will be "fine". Other than missing a game or two, or three. Or, if they are really unlucky, they are not fine... But honestly, to me, this whole issue is less about safety, not that it isn't important, and more about just being able to play some f%#*ing football without worrying about the other stuff. So do it in January... Why does it HAVE to be September? The issue I have with the defiance shown by other schools (in a toxic masculinity display... really. A show that they won't let some virus disrupt them!) is what really is their reward for the risk? To play in half empty (or worse) stadiums under the blanket of controversy with the ongoing risk to just call the whole thing off anyways? To me the schools wanting to play are not deciding that from a logical decision making process, but rather an emotionally defiant one. One born of frustration and anger that COVID has taken over our lives, one born from the deep seated need to be back to normal. Other schools are pretending life is normal. faking it. But you can't fake your way out of this one. I, personally, would rather let the scientists and companies that are very eager to make billions of dollars, do their thing, give us a vaccine, let me be protected, then I can show up to a game an watch my team in peace. I don't give a s%#t if it is January or September, I will root for the Beavers any time, any place. This has nothing to do with toughness. Nothing to do with being a quitter and everything to do with simply being logical and pragmatic. I don't have a problem with most of what you say. Here is where the problem is for me. 1) The Pac 12 rushed their decision without coordination with the SEC, ACC, and Big 12...and especially the Big 12 (if they couldn't convince the Big 12 to fold, then they needed to work on their presentation of the facts, because the Big 12 was on the fence). Setting aside the silly south is dumb line of thought, the people who run those conferences; the commissioners, the AD's the school Presidents are actually really capable people (hell, most of OSU's recent Presidents came by way of the South). If you can't coordinate with them, if you can't convince them, then maybe it is a you problem and not a them problem. Honestly, from what I read the other 3 conferences are the ones being pragmatic and realistic. They are trying to create a runway to start the season. They realize it may not happen, but they are actively trying to work solutions and stay on top of the problems to make it at least a possibility. That seems much smarter then our supposedly 'smart' western solution...ahhh f it, we just can't overcome this adversity, we quit. 2) If it is about fans in the stands to you, why cancel the practices on August 11? No fans at practice. Keep practicing and keep trying to coordinate with the other 3 conferences. There was no need to panic and make a decision. If you read the stuff coming out of the Big10 then you know the decision process was just a s%#t show. The coaches weren't kept in the loop, the AD's in the Big10 were all against cancelling, but were kept out of the decision loop. It was a panic decision, and it will only be luck if it turns out to be a correct decision, and frankly I don't think it can ever be correct now. Even if the other 3 conferences eventually postpone their season's, it will be obvious to everyone that they tried everything in their power to overcome the adversity and make a season happen. That will never be able to be said about the Pac 12.
|
|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Aug 25, 2020 15:35:54 GMT -8
Texas Tech going with old school immunization. Out there playing 4D chess. I mean, 21 cases is like a quarter of your football team... "NEXT MAN UP... err. NEXT 21 MANS UP" (spits into can) You guys act like Clemson didn't already have 37 positives by June 26th. The active teams are aware there will be positives, there are also going to be positives on un-active teams. The active teams think they have the systems in place to control the outbreaks and play football. They won't panic because of positives. They may or may not succeed, but they have shown they won't panic.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysorange on Aug 25, 2020 15:52:48 GMT -8
I am shocked just absolutely shocked that there is more interest in high school and college football in the south than other parts of the country. Next thing Somebody will tell us that when the sun goes down it gets dark.
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Aug 25, 2020 16:27:24 GMT -8
I sure bet the Pac-12 coaches are not excited whatsoever about this development. I also don't think piling on the south for their pandemic strategy is even handled evenly here. Are people dying in the south because hospitals are overflowing? If not, then business as usual was the overall strategy from the get-go; the shutdowns were not intended to stop spread altogether, it was to 'flatten the curve' - meaning reduce infection rates so that local hospitals are not overwhelmed. If the goalposts have been moved to a 100% containment strategy, I missed the memo, as did the country, because at no point has any federal or state initiative had any chance of accomplishing that, nor has it been the stated goal by those governments. In reality, the there is a strong possibility that things go just fine with the SEC's football season, some campuses close periodically to again flatten the curve for the local health care systems case load, and they reach herd immunity regionally, well ahead of the other regions. Pointing their approach as being due to "valuing football more highly than others" while generally true, is a disingenuous argument for their general approach to the pandemic, IMO. I am sure a lot of people are upset about it. I am annoyed as well. I LOVE the fall. my favorite time of year for a large number of reasons. Football, of course, is a big one. My big problem here is more or less what I am going to call toxic masculinity. The idea of doing something in the face of some measure of danger for no other reason than to prove your toughness. That is, in my opinion, ludicrously stupid. It isn't just with football, but with the entire pursuit of all "policy" related to covid. But I will keep it on football and not the larger economy... I have no real problem with an SEC or other school that thinks they can play football safely giving it a go. I have my doubts they will succeed, but I won't root for their failure. I just think it is unnecessarily risky, but at the same time I am not going to pretend I actually care about the well being of people I do not know, more so than I care about the general well being of all people in general. That is only to say I don't want to see anybody be hurt or be sick, as a general principle. So at the end of the day, if an SEC football game is on ESPN, you bet your ass I will watch it. But what I support is the idea of simply delaying football a few months for a number or reasons. the big one is we basically, 99.9% are assured a vaccine by the end of the year. There are too many candidates with too strong of previous trials for one of them to not come through. I cannot stress enough how much this changes the paradigm. A vaccine comes out, is in use for a month or two and then we kick off games that: 1. have way, way, way reduced risk of COVID exposure for players and fans. 2. OH, fans. hey they can be there! 3. More fans = Mo' Money 4. Zero risk of just cancelling the season after a week or two anyway because half your starters got COVID! It just makes sense. Nobody really knows what happens if Trevor Lawrence tests positive at some point. Even if he is barely sick or has no symptoms at all, he misses two games. Like... is that fair? Is it fair to Lawrence? is it fair to the fans? Replace Lawrence with any other big name or star player. I understand there is always risk that at any snap, in a game or at practice, a player can have a career ending injury... it is that fact that makes me question why you want to pile more risk on top. Important players ARE going to get infected at some point this season. If isn't if, it is when. I have no doubt those players will be "fine". Other than missing a game or two, or three. Or, if they are really unlucky, they are not fine... But honestly, to me, this whole issue is less about safety, not that it isn't important, and more about just being able to play some f%#*ing football without worrying about the other stuff. So do it in January... Why does it HAVE to be September? The issue I have with the defiance shown by other schools (in a toxic masculinity display... really. A show that they won't let some virus disrupt them!) is what really is their reward for the risk? To play in half empty (or worse) stadiums under the blanket of controversy with the ongoing risk to just call the whole thing off anyways? To me the schools wanting to play are not deciding that from a logical decision making process, but rather an emotionally defiant one. One born of frustration and anger that COVID has taken over our lives, one born from the deep seated need to be back to normal. Other schools are pretending life is normal. faking it. But you can't fake your way out of this one. I, personally, would rather let the scientists and companies that are very eager to make billions of dollars, do their thing, give us a vaccine, let me be protected, then I can show up to a game an watch my team in peace. I don't give a s%#t if it is January or September, I will root for the Beavers any time, any place. This has nothing to do with toughness. Nothing to do with being a quitter and everything to do with simply being logical and pragmatic. You are making a lot of assumptions here though. First, that toxic masculinity has anything to do with their decision. Yes, there's a lot of bravado in some voices that get amplified, but that it has anything to do with the mindset of those making decisions. Bravado vs. a virus is foolish, and if that's the origin, then sure, unwise. However, given the info available, it's not cut and dry at all. Consider: - Vaccines being available and distributed ahead of spring season is speculation at this point; original timeline was 18 months back in March. That's the data they have to work with, not speculation on when a viable vaccine might be available based on the status of trials. Yes, there's a lot of companies working on them, but real efficacy, volume of vaccines available, who has priority, etc are very much unknown. As a result, there's absolutely no guarantee that spring will be much safer. It certainly seems likely to be safer, but if the decision criteria is only if a high-efficacy vaccine is available and broadly distributed leading into the season, then that is very much still in question. - There's increasing evidence that herd immunity for Covid-19 is much lower than 70%, may be actually between 20-50%, especially in younger populations. So we may find that by the time vaccines are available, there's little need for them beyond unexposed, high-risk people. We may also find that campuses in the south have long achieved herd immunity, even before the fall season is well under way. Bottom line, whether bravado plays into the decision or not, the available facts do not make this a cut-and-dry decision at all in my view. My issue with the Pac-12's decision, and with a lot of decisions that are happening, is that because they are hard decisions, they choose to punt. That's not leadership in my view, but because so many political positions are short-term positions (including at the university and conference level), there's no reward for bold leadership - it's career ending if wrong (or even if it just can be painted as wrong), while often not justly rewarded when right. Kicking the problem down the road and hoping it goes way is the safe bet and default M.O. Might you be mistaking 'toxic maculinity' for actual leadership here?
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Aug 25, 2020 16:48:46 GMT -8
I am sure a lot of people are upset about it. I am annoyed as well. I LOVE the fall. my favorite time of year for a large number of reasons. Football, of course, is a big one. My big problem here is more or less what I am going to call toxic masculinity. The idea of doing something in the face of some measure of danger for no other reason than to prove your toughness. That is, in my opinion, ludicrously stupid. It isn't just with football, but with the entire pursuit of all "policy" related to covid. But I will keep it on football and not the larger economy... I have no real problem with an SEC or other school that thinks they can play football safely giving it a go. I have my doubts they will succeed, but I won't root for their failure. I just think it is unnecessarily risky, but at the same time I am not going to pretend I actually care about the well being of people I do not know, more so than I care about the general well being of all people in general. That is only to say I don't want to see anybody be hurt or be sick, as a general principle. So at the end of the day, if an SEC football game is on ESPN, you bet your ass I will watch it. But what I support is the idea of simply delaying football a few months for a number or reasons. the big one is we basically, 99.9% are assured a vaccine by the end of the year. There are too many candidates with too strong of previous trials for one of them to not come through. I cannot stress enough how much this changes the paradigm. A vaccine comes out, is in use for a month or two and then we kick off games that: 1. have way, way, way reduced risk of COVID exposure for players and fans. 2. OH, fans. hey they can be there! 3. More fans = Mo' Money 4. Zero risk of just cancelling the season after a week or two anyway because half your starters got COVID! It just makes sense. Nobody really knows what happens if Trevor Lawrence tests positive at some point. Even if he is barely sick or has no symptoms at all, he misses two games. Like... is that fair? Is it fair to Lawrence? is it fair to the fans? Replace Lawrence with any other big name or star player. I understand there is always risk that at any snap, in a game or at practice, a player can have a career ending injury... it is that fact that makes me question why you want to pile more risk on top. Important players ARE going to get infected at some point this season. If isn't if, it is when. I have no doubt those players will be "fine". Other than missing a game or two, or three. Or, if they are really unlucky, they are not fine... But honestly, to me, this whole issue is less about safety, not that it isn't important, and more about just being able to play some f%#*ing football without worrying about the other stuff. So do it in January... Why does it HAVE to be September? The issue I have with the defiance shown by other schools (in a toxic masculinity display... really. A show that they won't let some virus disrupt them!) is what really is their reward for the risk? To play in half empty (or worse) stadiums under the blanket of controversy with the ongoing risk to just call the whole thing off anyways? To me the schools wanting to play are not deciding that from a logical decision making process, but rather an emotionally defiant one. One born of frustration and anger that COVID has taken over our lives, one born from the deep seated need to be back to normal. Other schools are pretending life is normal. faking it. But you can't fake your way out of this one. I, personally, would rather let the scientists and companies that are very eager to make billions of dollars, do their thing, give us a vaccine, let me be protected, then I can show up to a game an watch my team in peace. I don't give a s%#t if it is January or September, I will root for the Beavers any time, any place. This has nothing to do with toughness. Nothing to do with being a quitter and everything to do with simply being logical and pragmatic. You are making a lot of assumptions here though. First, that toxic masculinity has anything to do with their decision. Yes, there's a lot of bravado in some voices that get amplified, but that it has anything to do with the mindset of those making decisions. Bravado vs. a virus is foolish, and if that's the origin, then sure, unwise. However, given the info available, it's not cut and dry at all. Consider: - Vaccines being available and distributed ahead of spring season is speculation at this point; original timeline was 18 months back in March. That's the data they have to work with, not speculation on when a viable vaccine might be available based on the status of trials. Yes, there's a lot of companies working on them, but real efficacy, volume of vaccines available, who has priority, etc are very much unknown. As a result, there's absolutely no guarantee that spring will be much safer. It certainly seems likely to be safer, but if the decision criteria is only if a high-efficacy vaccine is available and broadly distributed leading into the season, then that is very much still in question. - There's increasing evidence that herd immunity for Covid-19 is much lower than 70%, may be actually between 20-50%, especially in younger populations. So we may find that by the time vaccines are available, there's little need for them beyond unexposed, high-risk people. We may also find that campuses in the south have long achieved herd immunity, even before the fall season is well under way. Bottom line, whether bravado plays into the decision or not, the available facts do not make this a cut-and-dry decision at all in my view. My issue with the Pac-12's decision, and with a lot of decisions that are happening, is that because they are hard decisions, they choose to punt. That's not leadership in my view, but because so many political positions are short-term positions (including at the university and conference level), there's no reward for bold leadership - it's career ending if wrong (or even if it just can be painted as wrong), while often not justly rewarded when right. Kicking the problem down the road and hoping it goes way is the safe bet and default M.O. Might you be mistaking 'toxic maculinity' for actual leadership here? My issue with the conferences trying to play football is that they do not give equal consideration to other fall sports, even though football is probably the most problematic to play in a pandemic. If you’re going to argue that football needs to be played because the men need it, then the other sports are equally worthy. What it really comes down to is the money. They want to run football for the money that it generates. So how is it not a bold decision to rule against the money, the hype, and the machine? In my opinion, it’s much easier for the other conferences to go for it. After all, it’s what everybody wants.
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Aug 25, 2020 16:49:10 GMT -8
And? Water is wet. No new info in any of that. I disagree Mr. Snarkypants! I haven’t read any real articles talking about the actual effect on recruiting, competition in the future, Etc. Only theories and predictions. i thought the gist of the article was that football is bigger in other areas of the country than the West. Prove me wrong. It's been this way since I was just a kit.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Aug 25, 2020 16:57:46 GMT -8
I disagree Mr. Snarkypants! I haven’t read any real articles talking about the actual effect on recruiting, competition in the future, Etc. Only theories and predictions. i thought the gist of the article was that football is bigger in other areas of the country than the West. Prove me wrong. It's been this way since I was just a kit. So that’s where the term Kit Gloves comes from! Wait... I have a lot of better options than to try to prove you wrong, so I’ll just stand pat.
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Aug 25, 2020 17:04:45 GMT -8
You are making a lot of assumptions here though. First, that toxic masculinity has anything to do with their decision. Yes, there's a lot of bravado in some voices that get amplified, but that it has anything to do with the mindset of those making decisions. Bravado vs. a virus is foolish, and if that's the origin, then sure, unwise. However, given the info available, it's not cut and dry at all. Consider: - Vaccines being available and distributed ahead of spring season is speculation at this point; original timeline was 18 months back in March. That's the data they have to work with, not speculation on when a viable vaccine might be available based on the status of trials. Yes, there's a lot of companies working on them, but real efficacy, volume of vaccines available, who has priority, etc are very much unknown. As a result, there's absolutely no guarantee that spring will be much safer. It certainly seems likely to be safer, but if the decision criteria is only if a high-efficacy vaccine is available and broadly distributed leading into the season, then that is very much still in question. - There's increasing evidence that herd immunity for Covid-19 is much lower than 70%, may be actually between 20-50%, especially in younger populations. So we may find that by the time vaccines are available, there's little need for them beyond unexposed, high-risk people. We may also find that campuses in the south have long achieved herd immunity, even before the fall season is well under way. Bottom line, whether bravado plays into the decision or not, the available facts do not make this a cut-and-dry decision at all in my view. My issue with the Pac-12's decision, and with a lot of decisions that are happening, is that because they are hard decisions, they choose to punt. That's not leadership in my view, but because so many political positions are short-term positions (including at the university and conference level), there's no reward for bold leadership - it's career ending if wrong (or even if it just can be painted as wrong), while often not justly rewarded when right. Kicking the problem down the road and hoping it goes way is the safe bet and default M.O. Might you be mistaking 'toxic maculinity' for actual leadership here? My issue with the conferences trying to play football is that they do not give equal consideration to other fall sports, even though football is probably the most problematic to play in a pandemic. If you’re going to argue that football needs to be played because the men need it, then the other sports are equally worthy. What it really comes down to is the money. They want to run football for the money that it generates. So how is it not a bold decision to rule against the money, the hype, and the machine? In my opinion, it’s much easier for the other conferences to go for it. After all, it’s what everybody wants. Is it about money though? If the Pac-12 is able to fill seats with no risks come Spring, the revenue opportunity is much higher than it would be in the fall - and that also excludes all the additional costs of testing, logistics, etc. the other conferences will have to absorb. IMO, that's a significant argument that supports the Pac 12/Big 10's decision, although I suppose they can't publicly say it. As for the other sports, consider that those sports budget also ramps up if they play now (added logistics/testing costs, reduced revenue); football revenue at least can help cover those costs of it being played. So with revenue down and costs up, of course it makes sense to prioritize the one that has the ability to absorb that combination.
|
|
|
Post by beavs6 on Aug 25, 2020 17:39:24 GMT -8
From Seattle Times: “There’s already negative recruiting going on,” 247Sports national recruiting editor Brandon Huffman said. “It’s like, ‘Hey, we care about your kid’s wellbeing, but we also still care about football more than the Pac-12 does or the Big Ten does. We’re taking all these precautionary measures, but we’re also still supporting these kids’ efforts to play football.’ “So I think now they’re going to have to deal with the already permeating feeling that football is just not as serious out west. I think the good schools in the Pac-12 are able to offset that. “… Will the Pac-12 even have a spring season? Can you see their states saying, ‘No, we’re not playing in the spring either’? If they end up losing a year, I’m not saying the Pac-12 is going to become a Group of Five conference. But do they pretty much solidify their standing as the least relevant Power Five conference if they don’t play football in the spring? Probably.” “One of the initial responses I heard from the (Pac-12) conference’s fans was, ‘Oh, we’re going to have an easier time recruiting.’ Well, no you’re not,” Huffman said. “The NCAA keeps pushing back the dead period. Coaches have all this free time but no ability to get on the road and evaluate and recruit. I looked at it like with my kids doing activities and playing sports in the spring and summer. I’ve never been more available to go to their events, but if there are no events to go to, then it really doesn’t make a difference. “That’s kind of how coaches are. If they’re not allowed to get on the road, yeah, they’re not having to game plan for State U this weekend. So they can watch more (highlight tapes) and do more zoom calls and all that. But if they’re not getting the face time in person with these guys it really is all for naught.” But if they play, the Pac-12’s omnipresent perception problem will be amplified even more. www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-husky-football/theres-already-negative-recruiting-going-on-how-fall-sec-acc-and-big-12-football-seasons-would-impact-pac-12-recruiting/If the Pac 12 sucks so much, how did Oregon net a 5* quarterback and the 5th best recruiting class in the nation? Pretty sure recruitment at Ohio State won’t skip a beat either. I suspect the issues that the Pac 12 have with recruiting are older than the COVID pandemic. Answer to question #1: Nike $$$
|
|