|
Post by hcpride on Sept 17, 2020 6:46:31 GMT -5
7 on 7 as in flag...or 7 on 7 tackle? Understand the rationale behind not playing tackle football, let's not debate that here, pro or con. Cannot believe anyone intelligent enough to be in charge of anything believes that (a) it's of significant health benefit to allow 14 players on a football field but not 22; and (b) one can seamlessly switch from 11 on 11 to 7 on 7 at the flip of a switch. Here in NY it looks like at least one league (CHSFL) will play 7-on-7 flag this fall with regular football scheduled for March. Apparently NY has categorized flag football as 'moderate risk' while regular football is categorized 'high risk' and that difference was cited as a reason for playing flag this fall. (I think those labels are strictly relative to one another and therefore do not fall as Covid infection levels fall...but I am just guessing on that.)
|
|
|
Post by alum on Sept 17, 2020 7:36:26 GMT -5
The Big 10 return to fall football can be seen as the triumph of science and data Yes, there are powerful forces and considerations at play on either side of the debate (emotion, politics, safety, inertia, tradition, money, risk, fandom, etc.) but the stubborn little facts regarding college athletes and Covid mortality eventually won the day. Even if everyone agreed on the facts regarding the ease of transmission of the disease and the potential long term and short term risks associated with becoming infected, the decision was not as simple as you make it. This, like so many decisions in life, came down to an evaluation of risk and reward. Some people have a greater tolerance for risk than others and some people's reward is larger than others. In the Big 10 where universities stand to make tens of millions of dollars if they play, where they will probably keep the coaches on payroll whether they play or not, and where there is little pretense that the players are not entitled to special treatment is different than a D3 school where is virtually no revenue, where they can furlough most of the coaches, are able to save money on equipment, and do not want to deal with whether athletes will be allowed to leave campus when that right is denied to other members of the student body. FWIW, HC and its PL and Ivy friends fall somewhere between those two extremes.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 17, 2020 8:12:44 GMT -5
Contrary to surmising above, what changed the B!0 was the new availability of daily testing with quick results. The B10 is also requiring cardio-clearance. www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/09/16/faq-big-ten-football-return/^^^ This should not be behind the paywall. The article indicates that the PAC-12 may also return, again because of the availability of rapid testing. _____________________________________ It appears HC tested about 750 students on Mon-Tues, three students tested positive. That brings the number of student positives to 34, including 21 related to the off-campus party (the 21 were not tested by HC). Two HC staff have also recently tested positive (tests administered by HC). No information available on whether staff became infected off-campus, or from on-campus contact with infected student. If 750 represents the local HC student population, that's nearly five percent infected. If BC has 9,000 undergraduates back, an equivalent number would be about 450 infected students. With 450 cases, BC likely would be on campus-wide quarantine, and considering / being pressured to close the campus.
|
|
|
Post by hc6774 on Sept 17, 2020 8:24:26 GMT -5
Contrary to surmising above, what changed the B!0 was the new availability of daily testing with quick results. The B10 is also requiring cardio-clearance. www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/09/16/faq-big-ten-football-return/^^^ This should not be behind the paywall. The article indicates that the PAC-12 may also return, again because of the availability of rapid testing. _____________________________________ It appears HC tested about 750 students on Mon-Tues, three students tested positive. That brings the number of student positives to 34, including 21 related to the off-campus party (the 21 were not tested by HC). Two HC staff have also recently tested positive (tests administered by HC). No information available on whether staff became infected off-campus, or from on-campus contact with infected student. If 750 represents the local HC student population, that's nearly five percent infected. If BC has 9,000 undergraduates back, an equivalent number would be about 450 infected students. With 450 cases, BC likely would be on campus-wide quarantine, and considering / being pressured to close the campus. This number comports with a report at last evenings HCAA meeting
220 on campus [capacity is 500 based on rooms that meet COVID requirements].... 650 off campus in the immediate area, there is planning to allow some of them access campus next week to library, study tents and other limited areas.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Sept 17, 2020 8:37:00 GMT -5
Contrary to surmising above, what changed the B!0 was the new availability of daily testing with quick results. The B10 is also requiring cardio-clearance. www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/09/16/faq-big-ten-football-return/^^^ This should not be behind the paywall. The article indicates that the PAC-12 may also return, again because of the availability of rapid testing. _____________________________________ There is absolutely no doubt that the public representations of B10 leadership was the new availability of same day testing for its athletes! (The question widely discussed on social media and elsewhere is whether this was convenient cover for the overwhelming desire to return to college football this year [for reasons ranging from cash to prestige to fandom, etc. ] while so many of the top programs were playing. And the football players were remaining healthy - apparently none (or essentially none) even hospitalized due to Covid. The spectacle of Duke playing Notre Dame [for example] was a bit too much for the Big Ten...hard pressed to claim those sorts of schools deny science.)
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Sept 17, 2020 8:52:28 GMT -5
The Big 10 return to fall football can be seen as the triumph of science and data Yes, there are powerful forces and considerations at play on either side of the debate (emotion, politics, safety, inertia, tradition, money, risk, fandom, etc.) but the stubborn little facts regarding college athletes and Covid mortality eventually won the day. Even if everyone agreed on the facts regarding the ease of transmission of the disease and the potential long term and short term risks associated with becoming infected, the decision was not as simple as you make it. This, like so many decisions in life, came down to an evaluation of risk and reward. Some people have a greater tolerance for risk than others and some people's reward is larger than others. In the Big 10 where universities stand to make tens of millions of dollars if they play, where they will probably keep the coaches on payroll whether they play or not, and where there is little pretense that the players are not entitled to special treatment is different than a D3 school where is virtually no revenue, where they can furlough most of the coaches, are able to save money on equipment, and do not want to deal with whether athletes will be allowed to leave campus when that right is denied to other members of the student body. FWIW, HC and its PL and Ivy friends fall somewhere between those two extremes. The process of weighing risk v reward in human decision-making is well established and well chronicled. (And frequently goes without saying.) I make no representation that decisions involving powerful forces and considerations at play on either side of the debate (emotion, politics, safety, inertia, tradition, money, risk, fandom, etc.) are simple. I was specifically writing about Covid and Big 10 football (it is certainly true all sorts of other schools - and all sorts of other institutions - have all sorts of concerns).
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Sept 17, 2020 9:02:06 GMT -5
The Big 10 return to fall football can be seen as the triumph of science and data Yes, there are powerful forces and considerations at play on either side of the debate (emotion, politics, safety, inertia, tradition, money, risk, fandom, etc.) but the stubborn little facts regarding college athletes and Covid mortality eventually won the day. Remains to be seen
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Sept 17, 2020 10:19:52 GMT -5
The Big 10 return to fall football can be seen as the triumph of science and data Yes, there are powerful forces and considerations at play on either side of the debate (emotion, politics, safety, inertia, tradition, money, risk, fandom, etc.) but the stubborn little facts regarding college athletes and Covid mortality eventually won the day. Remains to be seen You never know.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Sept 17, 2020 10:37:57 GMT -5
Can't speak for anyone else but I've been holding my breath just waiting for this to all just go away.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 17, 2020 12:56:32 GMT -5
Contrary to surmising above, what changed the B!0 was the new availability of daily testing with quick results. The B10 is also requiring cardio-clearance. www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/09/16/faq-big-ten-football-return/^^^ This should not be behind the paywall. The article indicates that the PAC-12 may also return, again because of the availability of rapid testing. _____________________________________ It appears HC tested about 750 students on Mon-Tues, three students tested positive. That brings the number of student positives to 34, including 21 related to the off-campus party (the 21 were not tested by HC). Two HC staff have also recently tested positive (tests administered by HC). No information available on whether staff became infected off-campus, or from on-campus contact with infected student. If 750 represents the local HC student population, that's nearly five percent infected. If BC has 9,000 undergraduates back, an equivalent number would be about 450 infected students. With 450 cases, BC likely would be on campus-wide quarantine, and considering / being pressured to close the campus. This number comports with a report at last evenings HCAA meeting
220 on campus [capacity is 500 based on rooms that meet COVID requirements].... 650 off campus in the immediate area, there is planning to allow some of them access campus next week to library, study tents and other limited areas. 870 either on campus of off-campus in the Worcester represent about 28 percent of enrollment. The 500 available beds may include Loyola, which was originally designated as the isolation / quarantine dorm. Total test results from Broad this week through this morning. Zero results on Sun & Mon, and 1159 test results reported on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday AM (today). This testing was done on Monday, Tuesday, and probably Wednesday. The total number likely includes 250+ staff tests. This total also suggests that HC has begun testing those living off-campus who will not have permission to come on-campus, at least near-term. _______________________ The LSU head coach apparently admitted "most" of the football team had been infected. No that I am the 'decider' (GWBuh) I have no problem with the B10 protocols for resuming football, nor would I have a problem with P12 resuming play, if the P12 standards were similar. The SEC, at least at LSU, appears to have had protocols more tolerant of outbreaks. ______________________ San Diego County has asked the state of California to not include San Diego State University as part of the county 'community'. Why? The outbreak of positive cases at SDSU is affecting the county's ability to re-open businesses. 700+ cases through yesterday. The Governor said 'No' to the county's request. www.kpbs.org/news/2020/sep/16/governor-wont-exclude-sdsu-covid-19-cases/www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/san-diego/story/2020-09-16/college-area-residents-worry-about-sdsus-covid-19-cases
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Sept 17, 2020 13:17:18 GMT -5
7 on 7 as in flag...or 7 on 7 tackle? Understand the rationale behind not playing tackle football, let's not debate that here, pro or con. Cannot believe anyone intelligent enough to be in charge of anything believes that (a) it's of significant health benefit to allow 14 players on a football field but not 22; and (b) one can seamlessly switch from 11 on 11 to 7 on 7 at the flip of a switch. Here in NY it looks like at least one league (CHSFL) will play 7-on-7 flag this fall with regular football scheduled for March. Apparently NY has categorized flag football as 'moderate risk' while regular football is categorized 'high risk' and that difference was cited as a reason for playing flag this fall. (I think those labels are strictly relative to one another and therefore do not fall as Covid infection levels fall...but I am just guessing on that.) That's a better scenario than what I understood it to be (tackle in the fall, but 7 on 7; which made no sense at all). Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 24, 2020 20:18:44 GMT -5
Pac12 will play a seven game schedule starting first week in Nov.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Sept 25, 2020 7:05:33 GMT -5
|
|