End of Division I Sports as We Know It

[MplsGopher]

No argument, no intelligence, has to resort to personal insults

 

[Goldmember]

As much as most of us love going to games, the $reality is that football games are 90% a television production.

By this Fall it is likely, with certain precautions, that football could go on with minimal risk, assuming games are played in empty stadiums.

So why not do it? It could be a bad PR move at the time. That will be the only thing preventing it.

 

[WindyCityGopher]

Desktop testers are already approved. Test takes 13mins. School can buy one for each athlete and staff. Daily morning tests. These won’t be expensive machines either.

I strongly doubt that university administrations, or state legislatures that fund public universities, will take on that risk of liability if the rest of the campus is closed, even if tests are available. These are some risk-averse people, especially if they look at a scenario where an athlete gets sick and dies because of an unnecessary exposure to the virus. The reward won't be worth the risk.

 

[Goldmember]

I strongly doubt that university administrations, or state legislatures that fund public universities, will take on that risk of liability if the rest of the campus is closed, even if tests are available. These are some risk-averse people, especially if they look at a scenario where an athlete gets sick and dies because of an unnecessary exposure to the virus. The reward won't be worth the risk.

The risk of death from playing the game would be (arguably) greater than the risk of death related to coronavirus to people 18-23.

The point of campuses being ”open” (versus, I suppose, ”closed”) seems a quaint notion. There are people working on buildings on the campus of U today. Is it ”closed” or “open”. Sports go on all of the time when campuses are supposedly ”closed” during winter and. spring breaks and in the months of May-August.

We know that when things come back to normal, it will happen gradually and in phases, rather than sone flipping of an imaginary switch to an “on” position. Why would colleges be any different?

 

[MplsGopher]

I strongly doubt that university administrations, or state legislatures that fund public universities, will take on that risk of liability if the rest of the campus is closed, even if tests are available. These are some risk-averse people, especially if they look at a scenario where an athlete gets sick and dies because of an unnecessary exposure to the virus. The reward won't be worth the risk.

Easy, all players and staff sign risk waivers.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

No argument, no intelligence, has to resort to personal insults

You offer nothing but complaints and fantasy solutions. You were outraged that the U wouldn't be extending additional scholarship dollars to benefit the softball team. You called it cruel, but then suggested that to find the money for the extra spring sport scholarships, they should cut the baseball program. I assumed at the time that was more hyperbole, but maybe you sincerely think that would be a reasonable action. It's fine to just say "I am a Gopher softball superfan, I want the softball team to take advantage of the rules available to field the best possible team next year and I don't care how many other programs and people it negatively impacts." That would be unpopular and would get zero traction on campus, but it's your right to hold opinions which are unpopular, simplistic and shortsighted.

But you don't stop there, you vilify the people who actually have to make the difficult decisions while offering no realistic, viable alternatives. The bottom line is that the schools are facing a large budget shortfall, the scope of which is not yet known or knowable. You pretending there is just a money tree to shake doesn't make it so. And pointing out your behavior isn't a personal insult. If seeing that behavior described in print is distressing, maybe you should examine why you act that way?

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

I strongly doubt that university administrations, or state legislatures that fund public universities, will take on that risk of liability if the rest of the campus is closed, even if tests are available. These are some risk-averse people, especially if they look at a scenario where an athlete gets sick and dies because of an unnecessary exposure to the virus. The reward won't be worth the risk.

I wonder if there will be some legislative legal cover provided.

With a statewide waring "you're taking your chances, but go out if you want" and maybe even some legal coverage provided by legislatures ...

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

I wonder if there will be some legislative legal cover provided.

With a statewide waring "you're taking your chances, but go out if you want" and maybe even some legal coverage provided by legislatures ...

I don't think that's necessary. Anybody can sue anyone for anything, so there could be lawsuits, but how are you going to prove that you caught a virus at a football game as opposed to any other potential exposure over the days before and after that event? Hard to be able to meet your burden of proof on that issue. There's also the concept that by knowingly attending a public event in time of global health pandemic, you have assumed the risk of exposure. As long as the University doesn't say "we have completely sterilized TCF Bank Stadium and assure you that there is no risk of exposure to the virus," they should be on safe ground legally.

Think of it this way, do you think that somebody could successfully sue Cub for Covid-19 exposure because they came down with the virus eight days after shopping for groceries?

 

[WindyCityGopher]

I don't think that's necessary. Anybody can sue anyone for anything, so there could be lawsuits, but how are you going to prove that you caught a virus at a football game as opposed to any other potential exposure over the days before and after that event? Hard to be able to meet your burden of proof on that issue. There's also the concept that by knowingly attending a public event in time of global health pandemic, you have assumed the risk of exposure. As long as the University doesn't say "we have completely sterilized TCF Bank Stadium and assure you that there is no risk of exposure to the virus," they should be on safe ground legally.

Think of it this way, do you think that somebody could successfully sue Cub for Covid-19 exposure because they came down with the virus eight days after shopping for groceries?

I don't think that's the point. If campuses were closed, but they had athletes practicing and playing games (forget about the detail of where 125-ish football players and student support staff are going to live if the dorms aren't open), they may be able to dodge legal liability in a trial, but it's hard to believe they would be willing to take that chance. And the potential damage to the reputation of the University in the court of public opinion for being careless with their student athletes is too great. If campus is open, play ball. But if it's not, I bet they don't play at all. I could be wrong, we'll see.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

I don't think that's necessary. Anybody can sue anyone for anything, so there could be lawsuits, but how are you going to prove that you caught a virus at a football game as opposed to any other potential exposure over the days before and after that event? Hard to be able to meet your burden of proof on that issue. There's also the concept that by knowingly attending a public event in time of global health pandemic, you have assumed the risk of exposure. As long as the University doesn't say "we have completely sterilized TCF Bank Stadium and assure you that there is no risk of exposure to the virus," they should be on safe ground legally.

Think of it this way, do you think that somebody could successfully sue Cub for Covid-19 exposure because they came down with the virus eight days after shopping for groceries?

It's very possible that folks want legal coverage for something that is fairly unlikely to happen ... but they still might want it.

I have cloud insurance....

 

[Some guy]

I don't think that's necessary. Anybody can sue anyone for anything, so there could be lawsuits, but how are you going to prove that you caught a virus at a football game as opposed to any other potential exposure over the days before and after that event? Hard to be able to meet your burden of proof on that issue. There's also the concept that by knowingly attending a public event in time of global health pandemic, you have assumed the risk of exposure. As long as the University doesn't say "we have completely sterilized TCF Bank Stadium and assure you that there is no risk of exposure to the virus," they should be on safe ground legally.

Think of it this way, do you think that somebody could successfully sue Cub for Covid-19 exposure because they came down with the virus eight days after shopping for groceries?

All of this

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

If campus is open, play ball. But if it's not, I bet they don't play at all. I could be wrong, we'll see.

I don’t think you’re wrong. Universities are generally risk averse and I don’t think they’d be wrong to be cautious in this instance. I just don’t think legislative protection is necessary or would make things better.

 

[MplsGopher]

(forget about the detail of where 125-ish football players and student support staff are going to live if the dorms aren't open)

Athletes/staff mostly don't live in dorms. They mostly live off-campus.

they may be able to dodge legal liability in a trial, but it's hard to believe they would be willing to take that chance.

Easy, all players and staff sign risk waivers.

 

[MplsGopher]

You called it cruel, but then suggested that to find the money for the extra spring sport scholarships, they should cut the baseball program.

Are you really that lost on what I actually said, or just lying?

I said the exact opposite of what you just claimed here. Find the post where I said cut the baseball team. LOL

you vilify the people who actually have to make the difficult decisions while offering no realistic, viable alternatives.

Barry Alvarez is a piece of shit who should be vilified for his terrible decision, that no other Big Ten school has taken.

Therefore, a realistic, viable alternative to what he did would be: do what the rest of the Big Ten is doing.

The bottom line is that the schools are facing a large budget shortfall, the scope of which is not yet known or knowable.

Exactly. No reason to make terrible, regrettable decisions now, when we're currently living week-to-week.

 

[WriterGoph]

Fauci said in an interview today he can see sports returning this summer with no fans and teams staying in hotels/dedicated lodging.

 

[WindyCityGopher]

As I was saying...

 

[WriterGoph]

As I was saying...

Luckily we are 4-5 months away from campuses needing to be deemed safe for students to return.

 

[MplsGopher]

Luckily we are 4-5 months away from campuses needing to be deemed safe for students to return.

Players need time to train and prepare, this summer too. Lost spring practices in, say, June could be realistic. Then weight lifting and conditioning in July, fall camp in August.

 

[MplsGopher]

As I was saying...

So first of all: you were right.

Ok, got that? Just want to make sure you see that I'm acknowledging you were right, before I say anything else.



That said, it's plain as day to see what's going on here: major colleges are trying to use this country's heroin-addition to college football (and sports in general) to put pressure on on governors to force open the country.

Because they are terrified, for their lives, what might happen if students can't physically come back to campus this fall. Summer is one thing, and doesn't matter that much. But fall is a rebirth each year, of a new class of people seeking a once in a lifetime experience.

It's that (physical) experience, perhaps more than anything, that people find it worth paying the premium that colleges demand these days. Without that, why would they pay that?


So they're trying to use football, in part, to force it back open, to prevent that which they consider a nightmare scenario.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

Are you really that lost on what I actually said, or just lying?

I said the exact opposite of what you just claimed here. Find the post where I said cut the baseball team. LOL

Like I said, it was nonsense you were spouting as part of one of your rants about the decision not to fund the extra softball scholarships. I assumed it was hyperbole. But since you asked, it was from April 6. Post #34 in a thread you started on the Other Sports forum entitled "Coyle will not allow Spring Sports to give extra scholarships to athletes with extra eligibility."

I know what would save a lot more money: cutting baseball altogether. Wisconsin did it. So it has precedent and is allowed. Why isn't Coyle brave enough to take that step, if he really wants to be a big cost saver?

Barry Alvarez is a piece of shit who should be vilified for his terrible decision, that no other Big Ten school has taken.

Therefore, a realistic, viable alternative to what he did would be: do what the rest of the Big Ten is doing.

I am no fan of BA and I haven't seen a survey of what other schools are doing, but you have already decried the approaches taken by Alvarez (no scholarships and no participation) and Coyle (no scholarships). There is no consensus yet on what other schools will do, but you have made clear that, in your view, not funding the extra scholarships is "cruel" and "nonsensical." Your argument is that the budgets are big, so they should fund the softball scholarships because the money to do that is small compared to the total budget. You just want to ignore the fact that the budgets are going to face large cuts. Most everyone else sees that it would be foolhardy to voluntarily assume additional liabilities in this climate of coming budget cuts, you don't.

Exactly. No reason to make terrible, regrettable decisions now, when we're currently living week-to-week.

The ADs have to make a budget for next year. They have to make cuts, they just don't know yet how deep. Taking on additional, voluntary obligations in that environment is unlikely to occur. And you aren't advocating waiting to see what happens, you are demanding that they take on the extra scholarship obligations right now.

 

[Veritas]

It's my perception that we've been told many times by many people in the know that a vaccine is 12-18 months away, optimistically.

If there is no vaccine by autumn, would fans show up to sit in stadiums to watch games in 2020? Not many would, in my opinion.

If there's no vaccine by autumn, would players be allowed to play? Would players themselves decide to play, or would they refuse?

I hope I'm wrong, but I can't see the 2020 season being played at all.

I think it is clear now that this whole Covid 19 thing was totally overblown. It is amazing that some people have not figured that out yet. Huge changes coming over the next several weeks, not months.

 

[Veritas]

So first of all: you were right.

Ok, got that? Just want to make sure you see that I'm acknowledging you were right, before I say anything else.



That said, it's plain as day to see what's going on here: major colleges are trying to use this country's heroin-addition to college football (and sports in general) to put pressure on on governors to force open the country.

Because they are terrified, for their lives, what might happen if students can't physically come back to campus this fall. Summer is one thing, and doesn't matter that much. But fall is a rebirth each year, of a new class of people seeking a once in a lifetime experience.

It's that (physical) experience, perhaps more than anything, that people find it worth paying the premium that colleges demand these days. Without that, why would they pay that?


So they're trying to use football, in part, to force it back open, to prevent that which they consider a nightmare scenario.

...and there is no real danger to 21 year olds. (Sort of an important detail.)

 

[MplsGopher]

it was from April 6. Post #34 in a thread you started on the Other Sports forum entitled "Coyle will not allow Spring Sports to give extra scholarships to athletes with extra eligibility."

So you are being dishonest then, since it was patently obvious that was a sarcastic hypothetical comment.

You just want to ignore the fact that the budgets are going to face large cuts.

Football won't. Men's basketball won't.

And you aren't advocating waiting to see what happens, you are demanding that they take on the extra scholarship obligations right now.

Wrong. I criticized Coyle and Alvarez for making a (false) choice now. I would be fine if they took a wait and see approach, as every other Big Ten school apparently is.

 

[MplsGopher]

As I was saying...

The other relevant point to make about this: these are just commissioners.

Some of the most opinionated, yet powerless (when it comes to the final decision) people in college football. The college presidents (ie, the CFP executive committee) are the people who actually make the decisions.

 

[Veritas]

Agree. There are however going to be some higher risk players - obese, DM, sickle cell trait, cancer survivors, etc that will need to probably take the season off OR there has to be a very aggressive testing regime prior to contests or some combination. A death would be catastrophic...not only for that person’s family but for the sport.

That said weas a society are going to have accept some risk to live life. Some more than others. We have to be smart about not endangering the vulnerable . And you know, many of those will be more than willing to take some risks anyway.

When I get in my car I accept real risk of death (indeed, realer).

 

[HoustonTXGopher]

My Godson who was to attend St. Edwards University in Austin, TX in the fall on a golf scholarship learned today that both golf and tennis programs are now being eliminated, as well as men's soccer.
Small school I know, but more of this will happen eventually. He is left with, what do I do now?

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

So you are being dishonest then, since it was patently obvious that was a sarcastic hypothetical comment.

Like I said, I assumed it was hyperbole, but the more of your posts I read, the less confident I am that anything you post is moored in reality.

Football won't. Men's basketball won't.

You don't think that Fleck and Pitino will be asked to reduce their budgets? Take pay cuts? Reduce their staffs? Nothing? We'll see, but I will be surprised if they aren't asked to participate in the department cuts.

Wrong. I criticized Coyle and Alvarez for making a (false) choice now. I would be fine if they took a wait and see approach, as every other Big Ten school apparently is.

That's not true and you know it. You started a thread and have posted on others about how unfair it was not to give the softball players scholarships for next year. You never advocated a wait and see approach. Now you are saying that you'd be fine if they told the spring sport athletes to "go ahead and enroll for next year, but we won't be making any decisions on whether we have scholarships for you or maybe even roster spots, until we see how the budget and the fall sports turn out?" I call BS. If that had been Coyle's original plan you would have bitched about how it was unfair since the athletic department budget is over $100M and the scholarships won't cost that much, railed against the fact that the SEC schools will take advantage of the rule and put our softball team at a disadvantage and lamented how unreasonable it was to expect the students to put their lives on hold while waiting for the AD to decide their fate.

 

[MplsGopher]

Like I said, I assumed it was hyperbole

A third grader could've told you it was sarcastic.

You don't think that Fleck and Pitino will be asked to reduce their budgets? Take pay cuts? Reduce their staffs? Nothing? We'll see, but I will be surprised if they aren't asked to participate in the department cuts.

Their scholarships won't be cut. That's the equivalent, relevant action.

Coyle did not give the spring coaches the option of having the expanded scholarships, at the cost of reductions elsewhere in the budget, including their own salaries. Don't you think spring coaches would've been open to that option??

Now you are saying that you'd be fine if they told the spring sport athletes to "go ahead and enroll for next year, but we won't be making any decisions on whether we have scholarships for you or maybe even roster spots, until we see how the budget and the fall sports turn out?"

Sounds like a much more reasonable position that the position actually taken. If I would've thought of that, at the time I started that other thread, then I would've discussed that there.

If that had been Coyle's original plan you would have bitched about how it was unfair since the athletic department budget is over $100M and the scholarships won't cost that much, railed against the fact that the SEC schools will take advantage of the rule and put our softball team at a disadvantage and lamented how unreasonable it was to expect the students to put their lives on hold while waiting for the AD to decide their fate.

Nope

 

[WindyCityGopher]

The other relevant point to make about this: these are just commissioners.

Some of the most opinionated, yet powerless (when it comes to the final decision) people in college football. The college presidents (ie, the CFP executive committee) are the people who actually make the decisions.

Do you really think these commissioners are talking to the Vice President of the United States and are doing anything other than communicating the direct positions of their conference presidents? Seriously?

 

[MplsGopher]

Do you really think these commissioners are talking to the Vice President of the United States and are doing anything other than communicating the direct positions of their conference presidents?

Why wouldn't Pence just talk directly to the CFP executive committee, that actually makes the decisions?


That said, like I mentioned in post #79, college presidents are terrified that if they can't get students physically back on campus this fall, that the higher education system as-is could be permanently damaged.

So they're of course going to dangle the carrot of college football in front of getting the country back open.