Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2020 11:18:03 GMT -5
No one is suggesting there aren't LOTS of people in this country who aren't taking this thing seriously... It's one reason we're still dealing with this thing on this scale. Or people are taking it seriously and coming to different conclusions. That's the reason there are proud and patriotic citizens walking around this fine country wearing masks with breathing holes cut in the centre? To be clear, just because money or political motives might be reason for one group to diminish (or exaggerate) the risks of this virus, that doesn't preclude sheer stupidity (or blind optimism) from also being a factor. A lot of it depends on where you get your news from and there is certainly some ideological correlation in the above list about HS sports who may, or may not, have superior medical insight compared to the B1G medical advisory board (led by former Surgeon General Boris Lushniak).
|
|
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) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,904
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 17, 2020 11:26:04 GMT -5
I was responding to the often used claim that this is a decision between health and money. Now if you want to frame the argument between health and stupidity - that would be a different argument. Do you think they're mutually exclusive? I am just suggesting that 'money' isn't necessarily the reason, in fact - money often times isn't related. Why is it so hard to think there are different scientific opinions on the subject that leads to different conclusions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2020 11:32:50 GMT -5
Seems like students moving back into campus has been as big a COVID disaster as it was expected to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2020 11:34:23 GMT -5
Do you think they're mutually exclusive? I am just suggesting that 'money' isn't necessarily the reason, in fact - money often times isn't related. Why is it so hard to think there are different scientific opinions on the subject that leads to different conclusions. Certainly one possibility. But if you think that high schools playing sports in Kansas are solely being guided by scientific opinion and aren't influenced by ideological predispositions, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...
|
|
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) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,904
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 17, 2020 11:41:00 GMT -5
I am just suggesting that 'money' isn't necessarily the reason, in fact - money often times isn't related. Why is it so hard to think there are different scientific opinions on the subject that leads to different conclusions. Certainly one possibility. But if you think that high schools playing sports in Kansas are solely being guided by scientific opinion and aren't influenced by ideological predispositions, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you... Kansas does have a Democrat governor.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 17, 2020 11:41:09 GMT -5
I am just suggesting that 'money' isn't necessarily the reason, in fact - money often times isn't related. Why is it so hard to think there are different scientific opinions on the subject that leads to different conclusions. Certainly one possibility. But if you think that high schools playing sports in Kansas are solely being guided by scientific opinion and aren't influenced by ideological predispositions, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you... They absolutely are. Just like the cancellation of the fall season in Oregon is influenced by ideological predispositions. (They currently rank 42nd in cases/100k in the past week)
|
|
|
Post by dman on Aug 17, 2020 11:43:22 GMT -5
And yet, what's your proof that it was?? I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you, just clogs up the board and does nobody any good. I simply posted a reason why the SEC is continuing to play at this point; nothing more and nothing less. You either didn't read that article or you're ignoring it because it undermines all of your posts regarding the SEC's motivation. They are, according to their medical advisory board, "continuing to play" because they're putting off deciding whether a fall season is viable, NOT because they've determined one is. The article simply said that they looked at the same report the other conferences did and at THIS MOMENT has decided to carry on. Can it change, sure! Now, let's move on please....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2020 12:00:32 GMT -5
You either didn't read that article or you're ignoring it because it undermines all of your posts regarding the SEC's motivation. They are, according to their medical advisory board, "continuing to play" because they're putting off deciding whether a fall season is viable, NOT because they've determined one is. The article simply said that they looked at the same report the other conferences did and at THIS MOMENT has decided to carry on. Can it change, sure! Now, let's move on please.... That is not what the article states. Some conferences looked ahead and decided a fall season was impossible... The SEC haven't addressed that yet, instead preferring to wait and gather more evidence. That difference, which may seem pedantic to you, is a big one. There is no indication in that article from the medical advisory board, that the SEC currently believe a fall season is any more viable than the B1G or Pac did. They simply aren't making that call at this time. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2020 12:06:06 GMT -5
Certainly one possibility. But if you think that high schools playing sports in Kansas are solely being guided by scientific opinion and aren't influenced by ideological predispositions, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you... They absolutely are. Just like the cancellation of the fall season in Oregon is influenced by ideological predispositions. (They currently rank 42nd in cases/100k in the past week) Agree! But in that case, can we stop acting as if HS football coaches are the ultimate impartial arbiter of public health policy? Sadly, whenever you get your news, you're likely to be influenced one way or the other and failing any kind of coherent leadership on a national level, the assessment of this mess will likely continue along traditional party lines.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Aug 17, 2020 12:11:09 GMT -5
Or people are taking it seriously and coming to different conclusions. That's the reason there are proud and patriotic citizens walking around this fine country wearing masks with breathing holes cut in the centre? To be clear, just because money or political motives might be reason for one group to diminish (or exaggerate) the risks of this virus, that doesn't preclude sheer stupidity (or blind optimism) from also being a factor. A lot of it depends on where you get your news from and there is certainly some ideological correlation in the above list about HS sports who may, or may not, have superior medical insight compared to the B1G medical advisory board (led by former Surgeon General Boris Lushniak). You hit the nail on the head, the idea that HS have better access to information, better medical experts they consult with, better infrastructure, access to facilities, money to test, staff then say the Big Ten.....well you’re high if you believe that. If every university and college in your state has canceled sports and your HS hasn’t, you either know something NOBODY else does or you’re ignoring what everyone else isn’t.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Aug 17, 2020 12:11:36 GMT -5
When the B1G and PAC12 first bowed out, I was listening to a medical expert being interviewed who was asked whether a college football lineman is considered to be young and in shape, or are they considered morbidly obese and very high risk. The expert hesitated, then said it was a really good question and they had no idea the answer to that and didn't think anybody did at this point. Best I can tell that is being hugely ignored and is being lumped into the "football is dangerous anyway" argument that already accounts for how unhealthy it is to blow up these young bodies to be 100 pounds more than what they would carry if active and healthy at college age.
|
|
|
Post by dman on Aug 17, 2020 12:12:18 GMT -5
The article simply said that they looked at the same report the other conferences did and at THIS MOMENT has decided to carry on. Can it change, sure! Now, let's move on please.... That is not what the article states. Some conferences looked ahead and decided a fall season was impossible... The SEC haven't addressed that yet, instead preferring to wait and gather more evidence. That difference, which may seem pedantic to you, is a big one. There is no indication in that article from the medical advisory board, that the SEC currently believe a fall season is any more viable than the B1G or Pac did. They simply aren't making that call at this time. Nothing more, nothing less. IT’S A DIFFERENT ARTICLE!! Omg....
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 17, 2020 12:15:37 GMT -5
They absolutely are. Just like the cancellation of the fall season in Oregon is influenced by ideological predispositions. (They currently rank 42nd in cases/100k in the past week) Agree! But in that case, can we stop acting as if HS football coaches are the ultimate impartial arbiter of public health policy? Sadly, whenever you get your news, you're likely to be influenced one way or the other and failing any kind of coherent leadership on a national level, the assessment of this mess will likely continue along traditional party lines. Hm. I agree that it’s a sad reality that everything is political now. However, for that reason I think it’s a perk, not a bug that we don’t have many national mandates. Would we rather the NCAA make a mandate that would come down to if the chief medical officer is an alum of Nebraska or Stanford? Emmert actually commented about this in his interview with Andy Katz last week. Everybody wants a dictator until they have a dictator. What percentage of people who are upset with the NCAAs lack of leadership would be more satisfied by the NCAA making a statement saying “we believe it is safe to play, thus we are recommending that conferences go forward with their seasons and will not be offering additional eligibility relief”. I’d be opposed to that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2020 12:37:00 GMT -5
What percentage of people who are upset with the NCAAs lack of leadership would be more satisfied by the NCAA making a statement saying “we believe it is safe to play, thus we are recommending that conferences go forward with their seasons and will not be offering additional eligibility relief”. I’d be opposed to that. I don't think this has been suggested by ANYONE. You might as well ask what percentage of people would be happy if the NCAA mandated forced sterilization of athletes to reduce interpersonal contact during these perilous times... Weird strawman scenarios not withstanding, it seems to me that some who apparently want to play are also now looking for greater eligibility concessions. I noticed it was being reported that one administrator (at West Virginia I believe) wanted a guarantee that eligibility would be protected for athletes even if they played in fall AND spring.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 17, 2020 12:41:19 GMT -5
What percentage of people who are upset with the NCAAs lack of leadership would be more satisfied by the NCAA making a statement saying “we believe it is safe to play, thus we are recommending that conferences go forward with their seasons and will not be offering additional eligibility relief”. I’d be opposed to that. I don't think this has been suggested by ANYONE. You might as well ask what percentage of people would be happy if the NCAA mandated forced sterilization of athletes to reduce interpersonal contact during these perilous times... Weird strawman scenarios not withstanding, it seems to me that some who apparently want to play are also now looking for greater eligibility concessions. I noticed it was being reported that one administrator (at West Virginia I believe) wanted a guarantee that eligibility would be protected for athletes even if they played in fall AND spring. The protection of eligibility was never a concern based on what occurred in spring. All of that is true. But I think my larger point still holds. Everybody wants a strong leader until they act strongly in a way they disagree with. (In this context, ‘strong’ meaning able and willing to make unilateral decisions)
|
|