|
Post by n00b on Aug 7, 2020 17:16:21 GMT -5
I haven't gone far enough back in the thread to know if this was discussed, but I can't help but believe that the NCAA is waiting to receive the economic status of the non P5 schools who must decide if the cost to run their programs (who already lose money) including the preventive measures they must take to keep the players and staff safe is worth it. As much as I would like to believe that UCONN and Randy Edsall placed the welfare of their football players at the forefront of their decision not to play this season, from afar it looks more like an economic decision than the way it was presented. Well I think there's even more to it than that for UConn. They're now a football independent and almost everybody is going conference-only. They didn't have anybody to play.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 7, 2020 17:26:10 GMT -5
The FCS Football Tournament officially won't happen this fall.
|
|
|
Post by joplin on Aug 7, 2020 17:34:32 GMT -5
I haven't gone far enough back in the thread to know if this was discussed, but I can't help but believe that the NCAA is waiting to receive the economic status of the non P5 schools who must decide if the cost to run their programs (who already lose money) including the preventive measures they must take to keep the players and staff safe is worth it. As much as I would like to believe that UCONN and Randy Edsall placed the welfare of their football players at the forefront of their decision not to play this season, from afar it looks more like an economic decision than the way it was presented. Well I think there's even more to it than that for UConn. They're now a football independent and almost everybody is going conference-only. They didn't have anybody to play. That’s a very good point.
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Aug 7, 2020 17:44:04 GMT -5
Well I think there's even more to it than that for UConn. They're now a football independent and almost everybody is going conference-only. They didn't have anybody to play. That’s a very good point. This is gonna hurt a program like Notre damn who stays independent in football because of conferences are found to division only play who in the big divisions is nd gonna schedule. Nd has had chance numerous occasions to go to BIG. BIG has been courting them forever. Since back when penn state joined maybe longer and Nd has refused. I understand why but circumstances at the moment dictate they may have been better off joining BIG. Yes I understand there’s no way anyone could have saw all this stuff comming guess I’m just saying every decision on life really is a gamble. You just never know. Notre dames interest doesn’t come from playing acc schools in comes from scheduling teams like usc and Mich and Ohio state and Stanford ect ect
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 7, 2020 17:53:43 GMT -5
That’s a very good point. This is gonna hurt a program like Notre damn who stays independent in football because of conferences are found to division only play who in the big divisions is nd gonna schedule. Nd has had chance numerous occasions to go to BIG. BIG has been courting them forever. Since back when penn state joined maybe longer and Nd has refused. I understand why but circumstances at the moment dictate they may have been better off joining BIG. Yes I understand there’s no way anyone could have saw all this stuff comming guess I’m just saying every decision on life really is a gamble. You just never know. Notre dames interest doesn’t come from playing acc schools in comes from scheduling teams like usc and Mich and Ohio state and Stanford ect ect It has already been announced that Notre Dame is playing an ACC schedule for this fall only and is eligible to play in the ACC Championship game. BYU is in more trouble. I was hoping they'd get the Big 12 to let them in for the season, but it doesn't seem like that's happening.
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Aug 7, 2020 17:56:55 GMT -5
This is gonna hurt a program like Notre damn who stays independent in football because of conferences are found to division only play who in the big divisions is nd gonna schedule. Nd has had chance numerous occasions to go to BIG. BIG has been courting them forever. Since back when penn state joined maybe longer and Nd has refused. I understand why but circumstances at the moment dictate they may have been better off joining BIG. Yes I understand there’s no way anyone could have saw all this stuff comming guess I’m just saying every decision on life really is a gamble. You just never know. Notre dames interest doesn’t come from playing acc schools in comes from scheduling teams like usc and Mich and Ohio state and Stanford ect ect It has already been announced that Notre Dame is playing an ACC schedule for this fall only and is eligible to play in the ACC Championship game. BYU is in more trouble. I was hoping they'd get the Big 12 to let them in for the season, but it doesn't seem like that's happening. You think they will draw what they usually do just playing in ACC. The BIG PAC and SEC have enough big programs in conference to be fine with conference play only but do u think this will hurt Nd at all? I’m talking for football only. Isn’t really a issue in volleyball in my opinion. With schedule Nd can usually put together in football with complete flexibility under normal times is why they didn’t join conference and I get that. They can produce plenty of money on their own without having to share it. I’m just curious. I understand Nd fans will watch no matter what but will other fans watch if they aren’t able to play some of these other big programs. Just curious to what affect it will effect them Think they have traditional matchups with usc Stanford and Michigan most years. What happens having those taken away other then higher probable winning record lol
|
|
|
Post by ineedajob on Aug 7, 2020 18:27:26 GMT -5
I haven't gone far enough back in the thread to know if this was discussed, but I can't help but believe that the NCAA is waiting to receive the economic status of the non P5 schools who must decide if the cost to run their programs (who already lose money) including the preventive measures they must take to keep the players and staff safe is worth it. As much as I would like to believe that UCONN and Randy Edsall placed the welfare of their football players at the forefront of their decision not to play this season, from afar it looks more like an economic decision than the way it was presented. I wish the NCAA would have given more thought and care to the effect that their slow decision-making would have on student-athletes.
|
|
|
Post by cyclonepower on Aug 7, 2020 19:08:24 GMT -5
I haven't gone far enough back in the thread to know if this was discussed, but I can't help but believe that the NCAA is waiting to receive the economic status of the non P5 schools who must decide if the cost to run their programs (who already lose money) including the preventive measures they must take to keep the players and staff safe is worth it. As much as I would like to believe that UCONN and Randy Edsall placed the welfare of their football players at the forefront of their decision not to play this season, from afar it looks more like an economic decision than the way it was presented. I wish the NCAA would have given more thought and care to the effect that their slow decision-making would have on student-athletes. Amen to this, and especially for foreign student-athletes who have a hard enough time as is transitioning to the United States in normal times, much less in the middle of a pandemic where social interaction is more or less banned and the country you are moving to/back to is not exactly doing a great job containing the virus. I feel bad for every kid in D2/D3 who have already lost their fall season, regardless of whether there is a spring season or not, it hurts. If/when the bad news about the D1 season comes down, those international kids are the ones I will feel the worst for. So many kids from outside the U.S. have been such outstanding additions to programs, you don't want this to have a major effect on future decisions whether to come over or not.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 7, 2020 20:05:08 GMT -5
I haven't gone far enough back in the thread to know if this was discussed, but I can't help but believe that the NCAA is waiting to receive the economic status of the non P5 schools who must decide if the cost to run their programs (who already lose money) including the preventive measures they must take to keep the players and staff safe is worth it. As much as I would like to believe that UCONN and Randy Edsall placed the welfare of their football players at the forefront of their decision not to play this season, from afar it looks more like an economic decision than the way it was presented. I wish the NCAA would have given more thought and care to the effect that their slow decision-making would have on student-athletes. Do you think the athletes currently practicing, unsure if they'll get to play matches are in a worse mental place than those who are sitting at home because their season has already been cancelled, with no guarantee of a spring season?
|
|
|
Post by ineedajob on Aug 7, 2020 20:42:57 GMT -5
I wish the NCAA would have given more thought and care to the effect that their slow decision-making would have on student-athletes. Do you think the athletes currently practicing, unsure if they'll get to play matches are in a worse mental place than those who are sitting at home because their season has already been cancelled, with no guarantee of a spring season? No, but I think the ones who have already traveled a long distance to arrive at their schools and then have the NCAA announce what they did on Wednesday are in a worse mental place.
|
|
|
Post by cyclonepower on Aug 7, 2020 21:22:49 GMT -5
Do you think the athletes currently practicing, unsure if they'll get to play matches are in a worse mental place than those who are sitting at home because their season has already been cancelled, with no guarantee of a spring season? No, but I think the ones who have already traveled a long distance to arrive at their schools and then have the NCAA announce what they did on Wednesday are in a worse mental place. It's a lose-lose. Yeah, kids at home are probably not doing great right now while a bunch of programs are getting back to practice. But if/when the time comes and the season is canceled, a whole lot of kids are going to be going through those same emotions/feelings (I predict the season gets canceled before it starts). On top of that, this is a very different "practicing" than they are used to. You see teams practicing in masks, going in smaller groups over the whole team, probably having been tested at some point recently, sanitation rules and other smaller things that they have to think about while at and around practice that they never would have before, etc. Then you add in that basically no one knows their schedule yet or even a first match date. I'm an Iowa State fan, I have no idea when they are starting and I am guessing the coaches/players don't have a great idea either. I'm guessing that those who are back practicing would rather be there than at home or not playing, but let's not act like there are 240ish schools who are running like normal. This is a very different volleyball than they have ever experienced.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,437
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 8, 2020 7:01:03 GMT -5
Georgia wasn't the only state that was counting antibody tests in the denominator. I am pretty sure that Texas, Michigan, and Missouri also did this - along with several other states. It was a dumb thing to do - but it also doesn't appear to have been done because of incompetence or bad faith. At the time - ~ 10% of the Georgia tests were antibody. This was usually done before people started really looking at % positives. States (like Georgia) were looking in terms of # of cases. Since a positive for antibody is a good thing and a positive for viral is bad - they only counted the viral positives in their cases (which is the correct way to do this). In turn, they were independently counting the # of tests - in which case they were counting both viral and antibody. Which is sort of okay, until you want to look at % positive for viral. At this point - Georgia and other states started correcting their data and made a one-time correction for the past. This is very minor compared to some of the massive data corrections New Jersey has made over time. I understand that they weren't the only ones doing it. But they were reporting a positivity rate so I disagree that it was before ppl were looking at the percent of positive tests. The ppl I know were looking at the percent of positive tests in April (and clearly others were too or it wouldn't have been reported). Another thing that some places (including Orange County in CA) did was to report the number of tests, not the number of ppl tested. That was another way to make an area look good. (bc you'd add 2 to the denominator for every test and, if it was positive, only 1 in the numerator or 0 if it was negative)
Regardless of why they did it, it means that unless you go back and correct the old data to make sure it's being calculated in the same way as current data, you shouldn't compare the two (including by conflating the data on one trend line). That was my main point.
ETA: Maybe it has all been corrected. that's why I asked. But I wouldn't assume that it has been.
These are good points. I have been using the data from COVID Tracking Project for each day - so the corrections occur on the day reported and not when it occurred. This does have some impact on the trend stuff I report. And I agree also about the changes from tests to people tested. But: 1) Those changes/corrections mostly occurred in the 2nd half of May. Which meant that the April and early May numbers in terms of % positive - were even worse. Strengthening my point that things were much worse in March/April than late June/July. 2) Here is the list of States that were reporting the antibody tests incorrectly until corrected in the 2nd half of May: Georgia, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia. Nothing from this list makes me think the reason the antibody tests were incorrectly included was for the reason most people want to assume. And only Michigan and Illinois were experiencing large numbers as of that time.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,437
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 8, 2020 7:10:37 GMT -5
Most of the Bay Area's numbers were also going up and few (none really) of the counties had re-opened. When they got put on the watch list (where there are more restrictions), there were no new restrictions bc the prohibited activities (e.g., indoor dining) were already prohibited. They hadn't allowed it since the original SiP order. (One county had allowed it for two or three days but that wasn't long enough to show up in increased cases.)
I think most ppl in NorCal blamed SoCal and the Central Valley but was that correct? It's easy to blame other ppl and feel virtuous when you're sacrificing and think you're doing everything right but were we doing everything right? Cases were increasing, positivity rate was increasing, hospitalizations were increasing. It turns out that the hospitalizations may have been bc CA was bringing ppl in from other parts of CA, e.g., Imperial County, and bc San Quentin had a really bad outbreak (bc they stupidly brought prisoners in from Chino in order to protect them from COVID, instead they spread it). But the state isn't transparent about how they count hospitalizations so no one I've talked to is sure if, e.g., the ppl from Imperial County count toward Santa Clara County's hospitalizations or Imperial County's.
I think that Newsom opened things up too soon, mostly bc of pressure from rural areas and Orange County (and other counties surrounding LA County). I think that led to the high rates we see now. But the Bay Area did not open up and its rates still went up a lot. So what was going on there? Was it bc of CA moving ppl in from other parts of the state or was it something else?
I have assumed that one of the bigger factors between Northern California (and particularly the Bay Area) and Southern California has been the weather. The weather in the Bay Area is outstanding. I am assuming very little air conditioning is needed. Southern California is hot with much more air conditioning. The correlation between cases and air conditioning this summer seems to be pretty high. There are many other factors of course.
|
|
|
Post by gobruins on Aug 8, 2020 10:07:52 GMT -5
Interesting someone mentioned water polo. I was talking to a BW coach who mentioned that more than 50% of the schools that sponsor water polo have already cancelled (I don't follow water polo and had no idea they'd passed that limit), so I'm interested to see how quickly the NCAA reacts to that. Will the cancellation encompass the entire academic year or will they leave the opportunity for spring competition? Sad for the sport of water polo, but certainly a test case for WVB. Looks like only 22 schools compete at the D1 level and 12 of them are in California (4 PAC12, 5 Big West) and 4 are Ivy, so no surprise. Men's Water Polo plays for a "National Collegiate Championship". Meaning Division I, II, and III all play for the same championship.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Aug 8, 2020 10:57:57 GMT -5
I understand that they weren't the only ones doing it. But they were reporting a positivity rate so I disagree that it was before ppl were looking at the percent of positive tests. The ppl I know were looking at the percent of positive tests in April (and clearly others were too or it wouldn't have been reported). Another thing that some places (including Orange County in CA) did was to report the number of tests, not the number of ppl tested. That was another way to make an area look good. (bc you'd add 2 to the denominator for every test and, if it was positive, only 1 in the numerator or 0 if it was negative)
Regardless of why they did it, it means that unless you go back and correct the old data to make sure it's being calculated in the same way as current data, you shouldn't compare the two (including by conflating the data on one trend line). That was my main point.
ETA: Maybe it has all been corrected. that's why I asked. But I wouldn't assume that it has been.
These are good points. I have been using the data from COVID Tracking Project for each day - so the corrections occur on the day reported and not when it occurred. This does have some impact on the trend stuff I report. And I agree also about the changes from tests to people tested. But: 1) Those changes/corrections mostly occurred in the 2nd half of May. Which meant that the April and early May numbers in terms of % positive - were even worse. Strengthening my point that things were much worse in March/April than late June/July. 2) Here is the list of States that were reporting the antibody tests incorrectly until corrected in the 2nd half of May: Georgia, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia. Nothing from this list makes me think the reason the antibody tests were incorrectly included was for the reason most people want to assume. And only Michigan and Illinois were experiencing large numbers as of that time. That ppl want to look like they're doing a better job than they actually are? Or, in this case, that they and their their boss (the governor or the president) are doing a better job?
I think that's pretty common and not just in politics. Obviously, politicians have an incentive to look good to the voters but so do executives at publicly traded companies and many other ppl (including doctors and public health officials).
|
|