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

Basketball not to be this year?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
2,592
Reaction Score
11,464
A new forecast of more than 140,000 deaths by early August just came out today. Will college presidents decide to go ahead with students on campus with so many dead?
I have seen some argue that college students are young and less susceptible. Well, college faculty are not young; they also have no way of social distancing in a classroom. This is an incredibly complex issue; if even one person dies because a college chose to open up, it is unacceptable. It’s like allowing loaded weapons in the classroom, with several people randomly firing shots continuously.
 
Joined
Mar 2, 2018
Messages
1,250
Reaction Score
6,424
The Colleges and University's are dealing with two competing dynamics. They have the health and well being of students, staff and faculty and the surrounding communities and those are pitted against the financial ramifications of not reopening the campuses to in person instruction.

If schools open and there is a virus outbreak I can see all kinds of lawsuits being filed plus there's the cost of shutting down the campus all over again.

If you don't open in the fall the financial ramifications will be severe, many smaller schools may not survive.
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2019
Messages
990
Reaction Score
5,249
I think more college football fans will worry about this issue since football season starts in September ....:)
I know I heard that the SEC was going to have football in the Fall. I don't think they will. The legal repercussions for those colleges could be severe. 100,000 people in a stadium is not a good reciept for virus protection.
 

KnightBridgeAZ

Grand Canyon Knight
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
5,231
Reaction Score
8,727
The Colleges and University's are dealing with two competing dynamics. They have the health and well being of students, staff and faculty and the surrounding communities and those are pitted against the financial ramifications of not reopening the campuses to in person instruction.

If schools open and there is a virus outbreak I can see all kinds of lawsuits being filed plus there's the cost of shutting down the campus all over again.

If you don't open in the fall the financial ramifications will be severe, many smaller schools may not survive.
Thank you. In all these discussions - directly sports related here and political on other forums - there is a tendency not to recognize that these issues are complex. We stake positions and don't budge.

Personally, I'm going with something the maestro said earlier in this thread or in another one - we will all have a better idea in a few weeks, certainly by June 1st, as we see the results of the increasing opening up of the country. Certainly that info, whatever it is, will be another factor for "planners" to take into account.

Like most here, I would love to have WBB (and other sports) back up and running. Like others, I am concerned, although I don't know enough to be optimistic or pessimistic. The biggest concern - out of the many - always seems (to me) to be what happens if a member of a team becomes ill with Covid19? If a sport starts up and team members throughout the league of conference start being affected, that would probably end it there.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
3,608
Reaction Score
11,807
Perhaps the example of Liberty University will prove a harbinger of what could happen if universities open up. Liberty, which told its students to return for the spring semester, has just been sued by a student alleging that remaining open and telling its students

"to continue to use their housing, meal plans, parking, and the benefits of the services and activities for which their fees paid, was not only illusory and empty—because there were no more on-campus classes—but it was also extremely dangerous and irresponsible,"


The key words are "extremely dangerous and irresponsible." What if UConn were to open up with a resurgence of the virus underway? I can't envision a scenario in which the university is closed to the general student population, but an exception is made to permit basketball players, or the other fall sports athletes, to return, remain in athletes' dorms, and gather together in gym changing facilities and showers, yet the university leaders feel no worries about the consequences.
 

oldude

bamboo lover
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
16,734
Reaction Score
147,325
Perhaps the example of Liberty University will prove a harbinger of what could happen if universities open up. Liberty, which told its students to return for the spring semester, has just been sued by a student alleging that remaining open and telling its students

"to continue to use their housing, meal plans, parking, and the benefits of the services and activities for which their fees paid, was not only illusory and empty—because there were no more on-campus classes—but it was also extremely dangerous and irresponsible,"


The key words are "extremely dangerous and irresponsible." What if UConn were to open up with a resurgence of the virus underway? I can't envision a scenario in which the university is closed to the general student population, but an exception is made to permit basketball players, or the other fall sports athletes, to return, remain in athletes' dorms, and gather together in gym changing facilities and showers, yet the university leaders feel no worries about the consequences.
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.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
515
Reaction Score
1,886
The "Powers That Be" keep acting like one day we will wake up and it will be gone. Not going to happen! Every one of us will get it one way or the other. Either you will show symptoms or you will be asymptomatic. The population can not begin to fight it on their own until a vast majority has been exposed to it. Isolation may have slowed down the spread, but it also slowed down the immune buildup.

If you watched any of the hearing yesterday, you heard that the vaccine may never be effective. The Flu vaccine is usually only 50-60% effective. Everyone seems to be banking on something that may never come.
Agreed. The other thing isolation has done, however, is control the damage to our medical system. That was the whole point of flattening the curve. If we decide to "spike the curve" instead, at what point do the for-profit medical corporations that form the backbone of health care in the US decide to throw in the towel?
 

TheFarmFan

Stanford Fan, Huskies Admirer
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
1,891
Reaction Score
13,159
FWIW, Yale's provost announced yesterday that the university has yet to make a final decision on on-campus attendance, and may wait to do so until as late as July:

[Summary: Yale will begin fall semester 2020 on time. Decisions about class format (in-person, online, or a hybrid) will be announced by early July. In accordance with guidelines issued by public health experts and the state’s Reopen CT Initiative, Yale will begin a limited and phased expansion of on-campus research and library services in June.]

Academic Continuity Planning for the Fall
The Academic Continuity Committee is developing educational contingency plans with input from the community. Even though we are all eager to know what to expect in the fall, many details cannot be resolved until we have more information about the path of the pandemic. We continue to make plans for both a residential education or for instruction online. As stated by President Salovey in his April 21 message, a detailed announcement about these plans and decisions for the fall will be released by early July. However, there is a key recommendation from the committee that we have accepted and can report now:

Yale University will begin fall semester 2020 on time. Classes in Yale College will begin the week of August 31. Most graduate and professional programs will start on schedule beginning after August 15, although some orientation activities will be rescheduled or conducted remotely. To maximize the chances that we can hold classes in person, there may be adjustments to the academic calendar that will limit the number of times that students travel to and from campus, and the schedule of courses may be expanded to utilize all the hours of the work day and the work week to accommodate social distancing. The graduate and professional school deans will be providing more details to their communities soon, and detailed information about the Yale College academic calendar will be announced by the end of May.
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2019
Messages
1,877
Reaction Score
9,615
The Colleges and University's are dealing with two competing dynamics. They have the health and well being of students, staff and faculty and the surrounding communities and those are pitted against the financial ramifications of not reopening the campuses to in person instruction.

If schools open and there is a virus outbreak I can see all kinds of lawsuits being filed plus there's the cost of shutting down the campus all over again.

If you don't open in the fall the financial ramifications will be severe, many smaller schools may not survive.
I agree completely with the "competing dynamics" and trade-offs that that are a factor not just for universities but for all areas of our society. Like it or not there is a cost for human life vs a destroyed economy. Everybody has their own view on that, but those kind of difficult decisions are now everywhere to be made. All decision makers have to make very difficult choices where they could be wrong on either side of the aggressive vs conservative debate. History may show who was right or wrong if one approach was clearly the best one in hindsight, but more likely is that whatever happens, major parts of the population will still disagree after the fact because of their relative views on the importance of lives vs. the economy.
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2017
Messages
2,398
Reaction Score
3,017
If schools open and there is a virus outbreak I can see all kinds of lawsuits being filed plus there's the cost of shutting down the campus all over again.

If you don't open in the fall the financial ramifications will be severe, many smaller schools may not survive.

This is an important point. Of the over 1,600 small liberal arts colleges in the United States the pandemic will most certainly have dramatic if not fatal consequences for many. Small schools in the news like Evergreen State and Hampshire will most certainly struggle and fail to stay open.

"The miniscule size of some of these colleges is astounding. The Chronicle of Higher Ed reports:

Of the 1,600 private nonprofit colleges and universities in the United States, almost 30 percent have enrollments of under 1,000 students. And though closings have amounted to less than one percent of private colleges, according to David Warren, president of the National Association of Independent College and Universities, a Moody’s Investors"

This article goes on to point out that these small colleges must offer significant discounts off tuition to attract students and have tiny or non-existent endowments. Like many fragile businesses for example restaurants and bars they simply do not have the wherewithal to survive this pandemic.


"Even worse is the fact that these small private colleges tend to be incredibly expensive. Nowadays, few people have the resources and leisure time to pay $80,000 for an education at a small college in a small town where there are few opportunities for earning income to supplement one's living expenses.

Indeed, many of these colleges have more the feel of a resort rather than a serious educational institution. Many of them are in bucolic settings with old-timey buildings that help one re-enact "the college experience" one sees in television shows and movies."

 
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
1,550
Reaction Score
5,365
Based upon what I see in my community, I believe we will see a return to college sports this fall. I live in the Northwest Florida panhandle. The difference between two weeks ago and now is stark, two weeks ago it was like I lived in a ghost town, now it is almost activity as usual. I am a member of the at risk group, old with health conditions, and I admit I am concerned. People around here are no longer wearing mask except for guys like me. I fear the virus and plan to continue reduced activity and less people contact. I will be so glad when this virus is conquered and my life can return to normal. Must admit I long to watch college sports on TV!
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2019
Messages
1,877
Reaction Score
9,615
On the safety front on campus, you could argue that the students are low risk because even if they catch it, they are at very low risk of dying from it. I believe Jordy mentioned the risk to teachers which is more significant, but maybe the biggest societal risk is when they return home for weekends, or Thanksgiving and Christmas with parents, grandparents etc. If campuses were a self contained community and students never left, they could do well with minimal precautions, but returning home is a whole new ballgame.

Another complication if basketball resumes and a player gets it, is that of course that player would be out for a significant period, but because of close contact if one gets it several more could have before it is discovered. Could there be team that had to sit half their roster and didn't have enough active players to put five on the court? Maybe, so perhaps adding DJC might make more sense in a season like this than otherwise.
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
7,357
Reaction Score
27,371
It's not just about dying. This virus impacts us in multiple ways some of which are permanent from dangerous blood clots to attacking the nervous system to destroying lungs and attacking other vital organs. This isn't a binary thing where you either die or just get severe cold symptoms. We simply don't know enough about this virus yet, and it's hard to make critical decisions when you don't know what you don't know.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
3,608
Reaction Score
11,807
Perhaps we should take note of the words of Rick Bright, the former top U.S. vaccine official:

"While it is terrifying to acknowledge the extent of the challenge that we currently confront, the undeniable fact is there will be a resurgence of the COVID19 this fall, greatly compounding the challenges of seasonal influenza and putting an unprecedented strain on our health care system. Without clear planning and implementation of the steps that I and other experts have outlined, 2020 will be darkest winter in modern history."

Will universities decide to open to students- and student-athletes- on campus if over the next few weeks we see a resurgence of the disease?
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
2,321
Reaction Score
5,534
Starting up colleges in the fall is problematic at best. Starting up college sports presents a whole different level of complexity. If one player on a team tests positive, the entire team should be quarantined for 14 days per CDC guidelines. If you think that is a bit much, keep in mind that the NBA season was shut down after a couple players tested positive.
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.
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
7,357
Reaction Score
27,371
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.
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.
 

oldude

bamboo lover
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
16,734
Reaction Score
147,325
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.
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.
 

dogged1

like a dog with a bone
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
817
Reaction Score
3,566
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.

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:

dogged1

like a dog with a bone
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
817
Reaction Score
3,566
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.

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.
 

Sifaka

O sol nascerá amanhã.
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
964
Reaction Score
8,472
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.
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2019
Messages
1,877
Reaction Score
9,615
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.
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.
 

Papa33

Poster Emeritus
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
568
Reaction Score
3,347
Bold or irresponsible?
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.
 

JoePgh

Cranky pants and wise acre
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
3,625
Reaction Score
21,052
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.
 

TheFarmFan

Stanford Fan, Huskies Admirer
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
1,891
Reaction Score
13,159
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:


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.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
473
Guests online
3,610
Total visitors
4,083

Forum statistics

Threads
155,780
Messages
4,031,420
Members
9,864
Latest member
Sad Tiger


Top Bottom