2020 Buckeyes Football

[-Akronite-]

Here's a name I never thought I'd hear again: Jeff Snook.

If it's limited programs and they all meet necessary minimum guidelines of some sort for player/staff safety, I certainly hope it can come together. Not terribly optimistic but it would be interesting to play in the Big 6 for a season.

 

[col63onel]

If it's limited programs and they all meet necessary minimum guidelines of some sort for player/staff safety, I certainly hope it can come together. Not terribly optimistic but it would be interesting to play in the Big 6 for a season.

I guess 2 questions need to be answered:

1.) Can part of the conference play and the rest of the conference not play?

We've heard various reports about which schools voted to cancel the season, from 12-2 to 8-6. We also heard both Gene Smith and the new OSU President said they were in favor of just delaying the start. How many schools would the B1G be OK with playing? 4? 6? 7? 10?

Also, will they allow B1G schools to schedule OOC games? Or play in bowl games?

2.) If you don't have students, can you play sports?

We've talked about in this thread how if a school doesn't have kids on campus, it becomes way easier to bubble them, and I think that's true. However, will any school allow sports of the kids aren't on campus? I have no idea how many schools in the B1G would be OK with that.

 

[inliner311]

I guess 2 questions need to be answered:

1.) Can part of the conference play and the rest of the conference not play?

We've heard various reports about which schools voted to cancel the season, from 12-2 to 8-6. We also heard both Gene Smith and the new OSU President said they were in favor of just delaying the start. How many schools would the B1G be OK with playing? 4? 6? 7? 10?

Also, will they allow B1G schools to schedule OOC games? Or play in bowl games?

2.) If you don't have students, can you play sports?

We've talked about in this thread how if a school doesn't have kids on campus, it becomes way easier to bubble them, and I think that's true. However, will any school allow sports of the kids aren't on campus? I have no idea how many schools in the B1G would be OK with that.

I think if they allow 6 teams to play, its because they want to make sure there isn't a revolt seeded by this in the future. Truly I think this could cause another conference realignment if they get 6 teams who are willing to play. I also think they can come out and say that they have gone thru the medical protocols with these schools and they feel comfortable that they have the resources.

As for playing without student on campus, that's what I can't understand. It will happen and they will justify it somehow but it doesn't make sense. If they go further and have fans in attendance even limited, that where I don't know how they can even justify that. At that point you are adding to the spread and stressing the areas hospital capacity. With no fans, they can claim it's for the protection of everyone involved and it gets the season out of the way without students on campus.

 

[I'mWithDan]

At this point, I personally have zero reason to credit one group of doctors over another. Proponents of a given approach tend to highlight the positives and downplay any qualifiers or negatives, and opponents tend to do the opposite.

To add to this, does anyone have much faith that college coaching staffs can collectively manage any of this?

What 3rd party is going to monitor that tests are taken, that they are secured per privacy guidelines, that if a player tests positive he is quarantined, that said player follows quarantine guidelines prior to returning, etc., etc.

There's just too many moving pieces. I have little faith a big program is going to have a must win game (to hypothetically get them in the playoffs), see their QB test positive and actually hold that player out if the school is in charge of the testing.

This isn't even a name names thing.....I'd image 99% of coaches are just letting that kid play, which is inherently the problem. I really don't understand this from a players' perspective either. Certainly there is a competitive aspect but unless there is a ridiculously thorough and funded plan, I can't imagine a football season (relative to current infection rates in certain parts of the US), would be anything but a disaster.......and many of these guys are then jeopardizing their NFL futures to play for free w/ a virus that can cause heart damage. It seems really short sighted.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

To add to this, does anyone have much faith that college coaching staffs can collectively manage any of this?

What 3rd party is going to monitor that tests are taken, that they are secured per privacy guidelines, that if a player tests positive he is quarantined, that said player follows quarantine guidelines prior to returning, etc., etc.

There's just too many moving pieces. I have little faith a big program is going to have a must win game (to hypothetically get them in the playoffs), see their QB test positive and actually hold that player out if the school is in charge of the testing.

This isn't even a name names thing.....I'd image 99% of coaches are just letting that kid play, which is inherently the problem. I really don't understand this from a players' perspective either. Certainly there is a competitive aspect but unless there is a ridiculously thorough and funded plan, I can't imagine a football season (relative to current infection rates in certain parts of the US), would be anything but a disaster.......and many of these guys are then jeopardizing their NFL futures to play for free w/ a virus that can cause heart damage. It seems really short sighted.

But they're also playing for free -- as are high school kids -- with the possibility of concussions, broken bones, torn ligaments, etc.. And I could see individuals all balancing that risk/reward differently. Clemson had 37 players test positive, and at least as far as I'm aware, there weren't any with permanent damage. So maybe other players look at that and think it is a risk they are willing to accept. For some, it may not be.

 

[inliner311]

 

[I'mWithDan]

But they're also playing for free -- as are high school kids -- with the possibility of concussions, broken bones, torn ligaments, etc.. And I could see individuals all balancing that risk/reward differently. Clemson had 37 players test positive, and at least as far as I'm aware, there weren't any with permanent damage. So maybe other players look at that and think it is a risk they are willing to accept. For some, it may not be.

I guess but there have already been professional athletes who have had their season derailed by covid heart complications.

So sure......maybe Clemson got lucky but we are talking about thousands of players. It is inevitable that kids, who universities have a responsibility to protect, are potentially making decisions that are not in their best long term interests. The point of larger institutions, in many cases, is to protect people from themselves.....and sometimes, to decide what is an acceptable risk.

My feelings are more about what system is in place to protect people?.........what plan is there to even have a conference season? I have yet to hear anything that remotely makes sense, especially with many southern schools planning to return gen pop students to campus too. It just seems like a bad idea, relative to what I have heard about the state of college campuses.

These aren't professional players. They are students and the risk that is acceptable to them is far down the scale of the risk that is acceptable at the professional level IMO. Maybe people disagree with that but kids 18-22 still just don't grasp the full gravity of life choices. When I was 18, I would have just still have been going to parties or a bar, because I had yet to mature and consider what life was after college. My concern is players are doing something similar here and their desire to compete and play is far greater than their ability to think years down the line.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I guess but there have already been professional athletes who have had their season derailed by covid heart complications.

So sure......maybe Clemson got lucky but we are talking about thousands of players. It is inevitable that kids, who universities have a responsibility to protect, are potentially making decisions that are not in their best long term interests. The point of larger institutions, in many cases, is to protect people from themselves.....and sometimes, to decide what is an acceptable risk.

Well, there's the rub. I think a lot of players probably believe it should be their decision as to what level of risk is acceptable. At least when it isn't a slam-dunk. Again, that's considering that football isn't exactly good for your health anyway. There's a pretty good argument that playing football at all probably isn't in the best long term interests of anyone collectively -- especially given the tiny sliver of high school players who actually make the pros.

 

[Chris]

Latest Big Ten statement basically means, forget about it. See you fall 2021, hopefully.

 

[Ohio]

Imagine writing a 1000 word essay...with no answers.

Dude is a POS.

 

[inliner311]

This feels like the spark that starts another conference realignment or some major changes in college football. I can understand not wanting any Big 10 team to go play in another conference for the season but the Big 10 commissioner should try to help if certain teams want to play.

 

[billmac91]

This feels like the spark that starts another conference realignment or some major changes in college football. I can understand not wanting any Big 10 team to go play in another conference for the season but the Big 10 commissioner should try to help if certain teams want to play.

tOSU walking away from Big 10 was never realistic....getting permission from Big 10 to allow them to pursue it was the hope.

Again, people have such limited knowledge of the AAU and the financial resources it provides. The Big 10 is the richest P5 conference due to this. Billions in cash yearly. Ohio State isn’t walking away from that, nor should they.....what’s unfortunate, is the key decision makers don’t really care immensely for the athletics programs, in fact many of the academics think athletics takes too large of a priority already. Which is probably true....

Bad look for the Big 10 going forward though...OSU likely navigates the fallout relatively unscathed, but as a conference.....good luck. The lack of fortitude to delay and try and make it work in fall, when things change week to week (which is Shaun Wade’s fathers POV) looks weak against the backdrop of the ACC, SeC and Big 12 going forward.

 

[SanduskyCav]

So does anyone see anything with Warren happening? I think it’s absolutely ludicrous that he is allowing his son to play and cancels the B1G season. To me it makes him seem unfit for his position. Who does he report to? I would guess that this could be upsetting nearly the majority of the conference presidents/ADs. Is there a way to overrule him?

 

[Bob_The_Cat]

So does anyone see anything with Warren happening? I think it’s absolutely ludicrous that he is allowing his son to play and cancels the B1G season. To me it makes him seem unfit for his position.

Here's something I find very odd about people calling Warren a hypocrite because his son is playing in the SEC:

-Most of these same people believe the players should have a say in whether or not they should play in the Big 10
-Most are saying the players are adults and can make their own decisions

-The SEC is going forward with their season
-Warren's son is an adult and can make his own decision

The train of logic is pretty easy to follow. Warren might actually be extremely pissed at his son, but there's nothing he can do about it because his son is an adult and earned a scholarship. It doesn't mean he's OK with it or agrees with what the SEC is doing. For all we know he told his son not to come back home if he left. Seems like there are a lot of assumptions being made with little-to-no information.

Isn't it also hypocritical to say the players should have a choice, and then chastise Warren for letting his adult son (who he has no control over) make the choice to play?

 

[Ohio]

Here's something I find very odd about people calling Warren a hypocrite because his son is playing in the SEC:

-Most of these same people believe the players should have a say in whether or not they should play in the Big 10
-Most are saying the players are adults and can make their own decisions

-The SEC is going forward with their season
-Warren's son is an adult and can make his own decision

The train of logic is pretty easy to follow. Warren might actually be extremely pissed at his son, but there's nothing he can do about it because his son is an adult and earned a scholarship. It doesn't mean he's OK with it or agrees with what the SEC is doing. For all we know he told his son not to come back home if he left. Seems like there are a lot of assumptions being made with little-to-no information.

Isn't it also hypocritical to say the players should have a choice, and then chastise Warren for letting his adult son (who he has no control over) make the choice to play?