|
Post by oldnewbie on Aug 17, 2020 13:08:30 GMT -5
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) I disagree completely. I, and I think most Americans, don't want a strong central leader that acts strongly. I want strong independent government agencies to be prepared to do their jobs in a crisis (NIH, CDC, FEMA, National Pandemic Response team, etc), not to be gutted, undercut, overtly politicized and ignored. I want that support and guidance to be free-flowing to the states so that the states can do what is best for their people. I expect the leadership to back their agencies, fund them and listen to them in a crisis, secure the national borders and support the states with everything they need. NONE of that happened.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 17, 2020 13:45:03 GMT -5
This quote, if accurate, seems utterly inconceivable coming from an athletic director.
(And this has nothing to do with whether it was a correct or incorrect decision)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2020 13:54:50 GMT -5
This quote, if accurate, seems utterly inconceivable coming from an athletic director. (And this has nothing to do with whether it was a correct or incorrect decision) That says more about the lack of communication within PSU than anything else. It doesn't reflect well on President Barron.
|
|
|
Post by jwvolley on Aug 17, 2020 13:58:34 GMT -5
Noob: I was born in San Diego
Bwf2: I disagree
Lol jk.
|
|
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 14:07:47 GMT -5
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) I disagree completely. I, and I think most Americans, don't want a strong central leader that acts strongly. I want strong independent government agencies to be prepared to do their jobs in a crisis (NIH, CDC, FEMA, National Pandemic Response team, etc), not to be gutted, undercut, overtly politicized and ignored. I want that support and guidance to be free-flowing to the states so that the states can do what is best for their people. I expect the leadership to back their agencies, fund them and listen to them in a crisis, secure the national borders and support the states with everything they need. NONE of that happened. In other words - you want things to work the way you want them to work. For the Government to be free and independent to make the 'right' decision - as long as the 'right' decision is what you believe. I don't want the CDC or FEMA to be the finial decider in what we do - that isn't their job.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Aug 17, 2020 14:34:18 GMT -5
I disagree completely. I, and I think most Americans, don't want a strong central leader that acts strongly. I want strong independent government agencies to be prepared to do their jobs in a crisis (NIH, CDC, FEMA, National Pandemic Response team, etc), not to be gutted, undercut, overtly politicized and ignored. I want that support and guidance to be free-flowing to the states so that the states can do what is best for their people. I expect the leadership to back their agencies, fund them and listen to them in a crisis, secure the national borders and support the states with everything they need. NONE of that happened. In other words - you want things to work the way you want them to work. For the Government to be free and independent to make the 'right' decision - as long as the 'right' decision is what you believe. I don't want the CDC or FEMA to be the finial decider in what we do - that isn't their job. In terms of CDC you are correct, their role is to give the best advice to the people who make those decisions based on the science.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Aug 17, 2020 14:36:11 GMT -5
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) That’s a more than fair point
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Aug 17, 2020 14:44:15 GMT -5
I disagree completely. I, and I think most Americans, don't want a strong central leader that acts strongly. I want strong independent government agencies to be prepared to do their jobs in a crisis (NIH, CDC, FEMA, National Pandemic Response team, etc), not to be gutted, undercut, overtly politicized and ignored. I want that support and guidance to be free-flowing to the states so that the states can do what is best for their people. I expect the leadership to back their agencies, fund them and listen to them in a crisis, secure the national borders and support the states with everything they need. NONE of that happened. In other words - you want things to work the way you want them to work. For the Government to be free and independent to make the 'right' decision - as long as the 'right' decision is what you believe. I don't want the CDC or FEMA to be the finial decider in what we do - that isn't their job. Which is EXACTLY what I did not say.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Aug 17, 2020 15:42:22 GMT -5
UNC is transitioning to fully online classes after test positivity rose from 2.8% to 13% after the first week of in-person classes. Also allowing students to cancel on campus housing for free if they wish to go home. Constant parties and 0 regard for social distancing among large groups of the student body from what I've heard and seen.
I remember Emmert saying they didn't want athletics happening at schools that were fully online. Does the NCAA have any power to effect that statement or will they be able to play anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Riviera Minestrone on Aug 17, 2020 15:52:48 GMT -5
I remember Emmert saying they didn't want athletics happening at schools that were fully online. Does the NCAA have any power to effect that statement or will they be able to play anyway? Would endeavor a guess that Mr. Emmert has more than enough slimy red herring smears on his fishmonger's apron to take on that. Leave well enough alone, Mark!
In other words...to answer question in yellow....NO: I don't believe they have authority.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 17, 2020 16:05:24 GMT -5
UNC is transitioning to fully online classes after test positivity rose from 2.8% to 13% after the first week of in-person classes. Also allowing students to cancel on campus housing for free if they wish to go home. Constant parties and 0 regard for social distancing among large groups of the student body from what I've heard and seen. I remember Emmert saying they didn't want athletics happening at schools that were fully online. Does the NCAA have any power to effect that statement or will they be able to play anyway? So we just infected a bunch of kids and now are dispersing them out into a bunch of different communities, with no follow-up testing or tracing? Brilliant. From a liability standpoint I understand why they did this. But from an epidemic standpoint, I have to imagine actions like UNC's are helping push this thing into 2021.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Aug 17, 2020 16:13:00 GMT -5
UNC is transitioning to fully online classes after test positivity rose from 2.8% to 13% after the first week of in-person classes. Also allowing students to cancel on campus housing for free if they wish to go home. Constant parties and 0 regard for social distancing among large groups of the student body from what I've heard and seen. I remember Emmert saying they didn't want athletics happening at schools that were fully online. Does the NCAA have any power to effect that statement or will they be able to play anyway? So we just infected a bunch of kids and now are dispersing them out into a bunch of different communities, with no follow-up testing or tracing? Brilliant. From a liability standpoint I understand why they did this. But from an epidemic standpoint, I have to imagine actions like UNC's are helping push this thing into 2021. This is exactly the reason why places didn't want to have any breaks during fall semester. Seems like a terrible idea. I don't know when most schools start but I think it's generally this week or next. A lot of administrators are going to be having some very tough meetings as schools that started earlier begin cancelling again. My over/under prediction for most schools cancelling has moved up to Sept 1 instead of mid-September. I'm sure I'll be fine here at Pitt though because we signed a ~community compact~ and they put masks on the panther statue and definitely aren't just letting kids party as normal on the weekends
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Aug 17, 2020 16:21:52 GMT -5
UNC is transitioning to fully online classes after test positivity rose from 2.8% to 13% after the first week of in-person classes. Also allowing students to cancel on campus housing for free if they wish to go home. Constant parties and 0 regard for social distancing among large groups of the student body from what I've heard and seen. I remember Emmert saying they didn't want athletics happening at schools that were fully online. Does the NCAA have any power to effect that statement or will they be able to play anyway? So we just infected a bunch of kids and now are dispersing them out into a bunch of different communities, with no follow-up testing or tracing? Brilliant. From a liability standpoint I understand why they did this. But from an epidemic standpoint, I have to imagine actions like UNC's are helping push this thing into 2021. Isn't that exactly what we did last march?
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Aug 17, 2020 16:23:36 GMT -5
So we just infected a bunch of kids and now are dispersing them out into a bunch of different communities, with no follow-up testing or tracing? Brilliant. From a liability standpoint I understand why they did this. But from an epidemic standpoint, I have to imagine actions like UNC's are helping push this thing into 2021. This is exactly the reason why places didn't want to have any breaks during fall semester. Seems like a terrible idea. I don't know when most schools start but I think it's generally this week or next. A lot of administrators are going to be having some very tough meetings as schools that started earlier begin cancelling again. My over/under prediction for most schools cancelling has moved up to Sept 1 instead of mid-September. I'm sure I'll be fine here at Pitt though because we signed a ~community compact~ and they put masks on the panther statue and definitely aren't just letting kids party as normal on the weekends Not entirely. Schools were also trying to finish before the full onslaught of what some are predicting as a nasty flu season.
|
|
|
Post by MonicaGeller on Aug 17, 2020 16:24:39 GMT -5
UNC is transitioning to fully online classes after test positivity rose from 2.8% to 13% after the first week of in-person classes. Also allowing students to cancel on campus housing for free if they wish to go home. Constant parties and 0 regard for social distancing among large groups of the student body from what I've heard and seen. I remember Emmert saying they didn't want athletics happening at schools that were fully online. Does the NCAA have any power to effect that statement or will they be able to play anyway? “classes after test positivity rose from 2.8% to 13% after the first week of in-person classes. Also allowing students to cancel on campus housing for free if they wish to go home“ That makes it sound like they have an option of staying, however later in the paragraph it says - Residents who have hardships such as lack of access to internet, international students or student athletes will have the option to stay. That sounds to me like everyone else (undergrads) is going to be asked to leave..
|
|