Basketball not to be this year? | Page 4 | The Boneyard

Basketball not to be this year?

Status
Not open for further replies.
baggerbob said:
If schools aren't open for the general student population, then there should be no sports programs. The NCAA and the power conference's have pushed the Student Athletes for years. If they play without the general student population, then they have no way to say the athletes are student's.
Expand ...
That horse left the barn years ago, and unfortunately has permeated almost all sports at the collegiate level, and is trickling down to high school student-athletes.
 
baggerbob said:
If schools aren't open for the general student population, then there should be no sports programs. The NCAA and the power conference's have pushed the Student Athletes for years. If they play without the general student population, then they have no way to say the athletes are student's.
Expand ...
I agree with your position. My position is a little more nuanced. If colleges open up with on-campus classes in some fashion, there is no guarantee that college sports will necessarily follow.
 
Jordy said:
That is an incredibly cheap shot. The NCAA has no role whatsoever in determining whether playing sports on a campus is safe. That decision rightly rests with the college Presidents.
Expand ...

Agreed that the NCAA has no decision making authority in this matter.
On that basis alone I guess it is a cheap shot, but incredible?
Sometimes the behavior of a person or institution is so consistently bad that it just becomes a reflex to blame them for everything.
[ ]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
oldude said:
One of the political battles that is yet to be fought will be the push by some in Congress to exempt businesses from coronavirus related lawsuits. I have mixed emotions about that initiative. On the one hand, businesses, including colleges, should not get a pass on taking all reasonable precautions to protect employees, customers and students. On the other hand, given the potential for asymptomatic transmission of this highly infectious disease, it is virtually impossible for any business to put in place a foolproof plan to completely protect everyone.

I suspect there will be some horse trading in Congress that will result in the passage of this liability protection. I think democrats will agree to the liability protection in exchange for the republicans agreeing to substantial aid to state and local governments.
Expand ...

I couldn't agree more with your first paragraph. Without releasing people or organizations from taking reasonable precautions, whatever happened to the idea of making your own informed decisions? As far as next year is concerned, if you believe it is unsafe to return to school, don't pay tuition and stay home and stay safe. If you've already paid and you don't want to go you should get your money back.
 
As I read the many intelligent comments above, I'm reminded of something the Sage of Baltimore, H.L. Mencken, wrote a long time ago. (I am going from memory, so take this as a paraphrase, rather than an accurate quotation.)

For every difficult, vexatious problem there is one easy, simple solution.


And it's wrong.


We have been presented with a false dichotomy: "open" the economy vs. follow sound medical advice. The answer lies somewhere along a continuum from total risk avoidance at an enormous economic cost to foolhardy, head-in-the-sand egotism, and damn the consequences for everybody else. I'd like to believe that we are capable of better reasoning and less simplistic decisions, certainly based on more science and less emotion. We shall see.

Pondering my own stance, I thought about what matters most to me as an individual and as a member of society. Paramount is safety, health, food and shelter
for self, family and neighbors. Next comes those same essentials for village, town and county. Continuing on, I come to those basics for state and nation. And let's not forget the world! There are maddeningly varied circumstances at every level.
If I were wise enough to figure out how to balance the risks and benefits—and I am not—then I would have attended to needs.

Afterwards I might move on to wants, including such basics as chamber music concerts, jazz performances, and other critically important entertainment, surely including WCBB.
 
Sifaka said:
As I read the many intelligent comments above, I'm reminded of something the Sage of Baltimore, H.L. Mencken, wrote a long time ago. (I am going from memory, so take this as a paraphrase, rather than an accurate quotation.)

For every difficult, vexatious problem there is one easy, simple solution.


And it's wrong.


We have been presented with a false dichotomy: "open" the economy vs. follow sound medical advice. The answer lies somewhere along a continuum from total risk avoidance at an enormous economic cost to foolhardy, head-in-the-sand egotism, and damn the consequences for everybody else. I'd like to believe that we are capable of better reasoning and less simplistic decisions, certainly based on more science and less emotion. We shall see.

Pondering my own stance, I thought about what matters most to me as an individual and as a member of society. Paramount is safety, health, food and shelter
for self, family and neighbors. Next comes those same essentials for village, town and county. Continuing on, I come to those basics for state and nation. And let's not forget the world! There are maddeningly varied circumstances at every level.
If I were wise enough to figure out how to balance the risks and benefits—and I am not—then I would have attended to needs.

Afterwards I might move on to wants, including such basics as chamber music concerts, jazz performances, and other critically important entertainment, surely including WCBB.
Expand ...
With mentioning of both "needs" and "wants" in an effective way, I sense there is some economics training in your background, am I correct? Most people consider the majority of what they spend money on to be "needs" when most of those items are probably more properly defined as "wants", with true needs being only those things that are necessary to stay alive, like food and basic shelter and clothing.
 
.-.
Dokey said:
Bold or irresponsible?
Expand ...
The original post said a number of universities "are looking at" bringing students back on campus. Simply considering their options seems ok, but actually populating their campuses and classrooms does seem "irresponsible," or worse, IF strategies for protecting against infection and much more pervasive testing are not firmly in place by the time they open their campuses.
 
When the lockdowns started in early March, the stated goal was to "flatten the curve" so that medical and hospital resources would not be overwhelmed with a huge early spike in cases. That is a very different goal than the one which some people are now advocating, which is to absolutely minimize COVID-19 deaths and infections regardless of the economic cost.

The expert commentary which I have been reading, based on the curve-flattening goal, seems to be forming a consensus that a combination of testing and contact tracing, with some continued restrictions regarding social distancing and mask-wearing in public, would allow most of the economy to be re-opened without overwhelming the health care system. Certainly there would be more cases and more deaths than if the present near-total lockdown were maintained and complied with, but I think most reasonable people realize that such a severe lockdown cannot be sustained over a period of many months (let alone years until there is a vaccine).

As in many other cases (e.g., auto safety and even airline safety), there is a trade-off between dollars and deaths, and the solution is not to place 100% priority on minimizing deaths.

With respect to college sports, obviously the first step is frequent (weekly?) testing of all athletes, coaches, and managers. Anyone who tests positive would not be permitted to play or practice for at least 7 days or until they have a negative test (whichever is longer). All teammates would have to be considered as contacts (as if the whole team were a single household), so they could associate with each other but not with the rest of the campus community for 7 to 14 days, after which a negative test would emancipate them. So, even while they stayed on campus, they would have to do classes online during that time. If teams from other schools were following similar rules, then games could be played without materially increasing anyone's exposure.

Depending on the overall state of COVID in Connecticut and the degree of pressure on the health care system, fans might or might not be permitted at the games. If they were permitted, they would have to wear masks, and if possible occupy only every other seat. There would be no availability of refreshment stands if they required people to stand in line at close quarters. But some level of normal life should be possible (unless there is a huge "second wave" by October, in which case all bets would be off).

There has to be a middle path between total lockdown and total freedom which takes account, first and foremost, of health system capacity and readiness, and after that, of both medical and economic realities.
 
When a top MLB player says that playing for (a reduced) millions of dollars in exchange for risking exposure to COVID-19 is "just not worth it," one has to wonder whether any college athletes might reasonably reach the same conclusion:

www.espn.com

Rays ace Blake Snell says he refuses to play for reduced MLB salary

Rays ace Blake Snell says he will not play this season for a reduced salary, especially because the risk of contracting COVID-19 is "just not worth it."
www.espn.com www.espn.com

JoePgh said:
With respect to college sports, obviously the first step is frequent (weekly?) testing of all athletes, coaches, and managers. Anyone who tests positive would not be permitted to play or practice for at least 7 days or until they have a negative test (whichever is longer). All teammates would have to be considered as contacts (as if the whole team were a single household), so they could associate with each other but not with the rest of the campus community for 7 to 14 days, after which a negative test would emancipate them. So, even while they stayed on campus, they would have to do classes online during that time. If teams from other schools were following similar rules, then games could be played without materially increasing anyone's exposure.
Expand ...
Critical problem here is that even by your own reasoning, a single positive test means any player on their own team or any team they've played in the past week would also have to quarantine for several weeks, which means both teams would have to forfeit up to two weeks' worth of games as a result of a single positive test.

Folks, barring a deus ex machina intervention we don't yet know about, I really don't see how this is happening, but lord knows I'd love for it to be possible, because it already feels like it's been too long without college basketball.
 
msf22b said:
It's still early...there's time for this scourge to go one way or another...Patience...all will be clear.

The next two or three weeks (with some states opening) will be useful in figuring out if our current problem will accelerate or diminish.

By mid-June all will be clear and our current semi-bewilderment will be resolved. Ja order nein...Too early to prognosticate now.
Expand ...
I shared this sentiment on Facebook, credited to a poster on a sports message board, and someone responded "wise".

As I read this thread, various folks, who at least implicitly seem to be from different parts of the political spectrum also speak the other truth. That the "sweet spot" destination for the country is somewhere on the continuum from severe lockdown to behavior as it was before the virus. That's a long distance (hence disagreements), but 100% correct. The trick is "where" on the continuum and as msf says, this will become clearer as we see how things progress in the next several weeks.
 
Currently we have some states opening and others having shelter in place orders. Some of those states that are sheltering in place continue to have a high number of cases while some of the states that are opening have a decrease in cases. We can't do this forever and not have an economy that we can return to. Sweden did not close down, but they did have measures that kept the numbers low. We have to have a middle ground where we are safe as can be while also continuing to have some normalcy in life and work.
 
.-.
MSGRET said:
Currently we have some states opening and others having shelter in place orders. Some of those states that are sheltering in place continue to have a high number of cases while some of the states that are opening have a decrease in cases. We can't do this forever and not have an economy that we can return to. Sweden did not close down, but they did have measures that kept the numbers low. We have to have a middle ground where we are safe as can be while also continuing to have some normalcy in life and work.
Expand ...

I really don't understand why people point to Sweden as some sort of model for how to do it. Sweden's death rate from the virus is 6th highest in the entire world. It's death rate is nearly 9X higher than its neighbor Norway. It's nearly 4X higher than Denmark. It's nearly as high as France's death rate. And it's a third higher than America's rate of death. And it's rising fast.

I don't mean this to be argumentative. The point with this is that lives are at stake. I possess at least five risk factors, any one of which would probably result in my death should I be infected. And all together, I'm toast if I get it. And I live in Connecticut, which features one of the highest rates of infection, and the third highest rate of death from Covid-19 in the entire country. By far.

So when we debate, or UConn officials, or Big East officials, debate "opening", we're talking about people dying. Not just old fogies like me. But kids, their coaches (Coach Geno is almost 65, and he's not exactly lean, so he's among those at great risk from infection, too), their parents, their professors, are at risk of dying from this.

I want it all to go away. But other than war, can anyone think of a situation in which the risk of death was so serious?
 
MSGRET said:
Currently we have some states opening and others having shelter in place orders. Some of those states that are sheltering in place continue to have a high number of cases while some of the states that are opening have a decrease in cases. We can't do this forever and not have an economy that we can return to. Sweden did not close down, but they did have measures that kept the numbers low. We have to have a middle ground where we are safe as can be while also continuing to have some normalcy in life and work.
Expand ...
One of the things that Sweden has is an excellent universal healthcare system that covers 100% of the population, including migrant workers. Despite that health care plan, Sweden’s death rate during the pandemic is 27% higher than normal.
 
MSGRET said:
Currently we have some states opening and others having shelter in place orders. Some of those states that are sheltering in place continue to have a high number of cases while some of the states that are opening have a decrease in cases. We can't do this forever and not have an economy that we can return to. Sweden did not close down, but they did have measures that kept the numbers low. We have to have a middle ground where we are safe as can be while also continuing to have some normalcy in life and work.
Expand ...

I could not agree more. I still fail to understand this reasoning. I can stand 6 feet apart from people in a crowded WalMart or Home Depot with a mask and gloves on but I can’t do it in a Mom and Pop grocery store? A very eloquent speaker at one if the “open up” demonstrations in Harrisburg, Pa., a woman who started a children’s clothes store with her mother 3 decades ago, wondered why it was deemed that Target and WalMart could manage the distancing and PPE rules and sell children‘s clothes but she couldn’t. So it was deemed her bankruptcy was acceptable “collateral damage” along with countless other small businesses? Why?
Plain old common sense has gone the way of the dinosaur and the respect for people’s willingness to observe rules that make sense and are applied intelligently and fairly has followed the same route. People will sacrifice when necessary and overwhelmingly have in this situation, but the fact is, these measures were sold as “flatten the curve” and by and large that has happened. It is now time to get back to life and living, albeit while observing common sense PPE and distancing guidelines.
War analogies seem to be somewhat popular, well, no war was ever won hiding in a basement.
 
Littlemin said:
I could not agree more. I still fail to understand this reasoning. I can stand 6 feet apart from people in a crowded WalMart or Home Depot with a mask and gloves on but I can’t do it in a Mom and Pop grocery store? A very eloquent speaker at one if the “open up” demonstrations in Harrisburg, Pa., a woman who started a children’s clothes store with her mother 3 decades ago, wondered why it was deemed that Target and WalMart could manage the distancing and PPE rules and sell children‘s clothes but she couldn’t. So it was deemed her bankruptcy was acceptable “collateral damage” along with countless other small businesses? Why?
Plain old common sense has gone the way of the dinosaur and the respect for people’s willingness to observe rules that make sense and are applied intelligently and fairly has followed the same route. People will sacrifice when necessary and overwhelmingly have in this situation, but the fact is, these measures were sold as “flatten the curve” and by and large that has happened. It is now time to get back to life and living, albeit while observing common sense PPE and distancing guidelines.
War analogies seem to be somewhat popular, well, no war was ever won hiding in a basement.
Expand ...
Mom and Pop grocery stores are open in NY, as essential businesses.
 
Jordy said:
Mom and Pop grocery stores are open in NY, as essential businesses.
Expand ...
As of yesterday all manufacturing, contractors and retailers in 5 of 10 NY regions that have met the CDC Phase 1 guidelines are now open for business in NY. I live in the “Capital District” which is still short on 1 or 2 guidelines, but we’re getting close.

Everyone wants businesses to reopen, but there is a right way and a wrong way. A month ago, the Federal Government outlined specific metrics for reopening businesses. Some states like NY, MA, OH, FL and others are following these reopening guidelines. Other states have not.

In the end, it doesn’t matter when states reopen businesses if people don’t have confidence it’s safe. One example Is worth mentioning. Several states have jumped ahead of CDC guidelines to reopen restaurants for in person dining. Surveys of restaurants in 3 of these states (GA, TN & TX) have indicated that business levels are at bare minimums.

I absolutely want to go out to restaurants and travel again. I’m dying to watch live sports. While my wife and I spend a lot more time on FaceTime, we are desperate to spend time with my son, his wife and our 2-year old grandson again. But for now we will live with this situation for as long as we have to, until we can return to whatever the new normal is, so that everyone can be safe and healthy.
 
Last edited:
.-.
I live in Phoenix. We just reopened restaurants, bars, barber shops, etc. I went last night to pick up Mexican food. I had forgotten about the reopening and was surprised to see the restaurant full of people dining and drinking, no masks (help or customers). Seems a little early, but we never really got hit hard here at all (yet, anyway).

So I was talking with my daughter who lives in New Jersey. We figured out that in the whole state of Arizona (7.3 million people) there have been only half the deaths from the virus than there have been just in Essex County, NJ where she lives (population only 796,000, including Newark). Just for the heck of it I looked up Phoenix's population - 1.7 million, and Newark's population - only 283,000. I knew Phoenix was bigger than that, so I looked up the Phoenix MSA (metropolitan statistical area). 4.7 million. So... then I looked up the Newark MSA. 20 million - BINGO!
 
j66kicker said:
I live in Phoenix. We just reopened restaurants, bars, barber shops, etc. I went last night to pick up Mexican food. I had forgotten about the reopening and was surprised to see the restaurant full of people dining and drinking, no masks (help or customers). Seems a little early, but we never really got hit hard here at all (yet, anyway).

So I was talking with my daughter who lives in New Jersey. We figured out that in the whole state of Arizona (7.3 million people) there have been only half the deaths from the virus than there have been just in Essex County, NJ where she lives (population only 796,000, including Newark). Just for the heck of it I looked up Phoenix's population - 1.7 million, and Newark's population - only 283,000. I knew Phoenix was bigger than that, so I looked up the Phoenix MSA (metropolitan statistical area). 4.7 million. So... then I looked up the Newark MSA. 20 million - BINGO!
Expand ...
The NYC CSA which includes parts of Connecticut and New Jersey is about 25 million people. One city's metro area with more people than every state in the country except California and Texas. Population density of 5300 people per square mile.
 
There is an interesting statistical metric relative to the metropolitan NYC area (NY, NJ, CT). This region has had the highest number of Covid-19 cases in the country by far, and has worked very hard to flatten its curve. If you pull out the NYC region from the National totals, cases in the rest of the country are still on the increase. If you also pull out Detroit and New Orleans, two major cities that also flattened their curves, it looks even worse.

In the past few weeks a number of new hotspots have appeared in places like Nashville, Amarillo, Columbus and Charlotte. I would love for this thing to be over, but I fear we have a way to go yet.
 
oldude said:
As of yesterday all manufacturing, contractors and retailers in 5 of 10 NY regions that have met the CDC Phase 1 guidelines are now open for business in NY. I live in the “Capital District” which is still short on 1 or 2 guidelines, but we’re getting close.

Everyone wants businesses to reopen, but there is a right way and a wrong way. A month ago, the Federal Government outlined specific metrics for reopening businesses. Some states like NY, MA, OH, FL and others are following these reopening guidelines. Other states have not.

In the end, it doesn’t matter when states reopen businesses if people don’t have confidence it’s safe. One example Is worth mentioning. Several states have jumped ahead of CDC guidelines to reopen restaurants for in person dining. Surveys of restaurants in 3 of these states (GA, TN & TX) have indicated that business levels are at bare minimums.

I absolutely want to go out to restaurants and travel again. I’m dying to watch live sports. While my wife and I spend a lot more time on FaceTime, we are desperate to spend time with my son, his wife and our 2-year old grandson again. But for now we will live with this situation for as long as we have to, until we can return to whatever the new normal is, so that everyone can be safe and healthy.
Expand ...

Hi Dude,
I’m curious to know your thoughts on opening up Saratoga Race Course for racing in front of an empty grandstand.
 
Ouremblem said:
Hi Dude,
I’m curious to know your thoughts on opening up Saratoga Race Course for racing in front of an empty grandstand.
Expand ...
Gov Cuomo announced today that NY race tracks (horse & race car) will open on June 1, without fans. So Saratoga will be open, races will be televised and I guess betting will be allowed via OTB. I’m 20 minutes from the track and love to go there every season. Not quite the same without being able to wander around the paddock, check out the horses, place your bet and crowd the rail near the finish line to cheer your horse in.
 
.-.
hoopsfan22 said:
The NYC CSA which includes parts of Connecticut and New Jersey is about 25 million people. One city's metro area with more people than every state in the country except California and Texas. Population density of 5300 people per square mile.
Expand ...
Interesting stuff. So I checked some other population densities:

AZ 45 people per square mile
CT 738
Phoenix Proper 3920
NYC CSA 5300 (from @hoopsfan22)
Newark 11,460
Hong Kong 17,300
Sao Paulo 18,700
Milan 19,600
Singapore 21,600
Mexico City 25,380
New York City Proper 26,400
Seoul 40,800
Paris 55,600
Manhattan 71,000
Mumbai 83,700
Manilla 119,600
 
j66kicker said:
Interesting stuff. So I checked some other population densities:

AZ 45 people per square mile
CT 738
Phoenix Proper 3920
NYC CSA 5300 (from @hoopsfan22)
Newark 11,460
Hong Kong 17,300
Sao Paulo 18,700
Milan 19,600
Singapore 21,600
Mexico City 25,380
New York City Proper 26,400
Seoul 40,800
Paris 55,600
Manhattan 71,000
Mumbai 83,700
Manilla 119,600
Expand ...

Connecticut is the 4th most densely populated state in the nation. And our air quality is very poor. We're learning that population density and air pollution both result in higher infection rates.

Sweden now has a death rate from the disease that is nearly that of France, and some 40% higher than America's. Just opening up results in a lot of people dying.
 
So happy to hear of the reopenings that are happening. I too support "sensible" reopening, while waiting to see the results over the next few weeks.

Yes, sadly, trying to open the restaurants with restrictions is very, very difficult for the restaurants. Without some of the restriction, they "might" get more customers, but there are an awful lot of us who just are not prepared to risk it yet - although most of us have no problem with those who do. We just hope they follow guidelines of distancing, masks, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,982
Messages
4,548,235
Members
10,431
Latest member
TeganK


Top Bottom