• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

NCAA releases nine-step and three-phase plan for schools to resume sports


I didn't see that it explicitly stated whether the 14 day downward trend is required at the national level or a more restricted area or both. It does mention regional approaches, which may imply that. I wouldn't be suprised if that isn't partly to accomodate the SEC.
 
Yes, not a lot of detail in this plan yet, at least in what is being reported so far. Maybe we will get more information on this.
 



huskrthill said:
It's going to be difficult to get a downward trend with increased testing.
More tests = more confirmed cases
Fewer tests = fewer confirmed cases

Just start testing less to clear that hurdle, I guess.
Click to expand...

With increased tests we'll get a better idea about the actual death rate. Maybe with the additional testing it will show the death rate is closer to the annual flu. If the death rate falls to that level they could open back up and tell people to follow safety guidelines for the people most at risk.
 
Last edited:
States with only one P5 team can open first.

Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio State, LSU, Arkansas, etc...
 
Last edited:




From the OWH: "SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey said on the radio this week that he thought each conference would have to make its own decisions on if and when football would be played, and that not every conference would need to say yes to playing for other conferences to green-light practices and games."

I take that as, "I really don't give a rip what ya'll are gonna do, here in the SEC we're gonna play football."
 
huskrthill said:
It's going to be difficult to get a downward trend with increased testing.
More tests = more confirmed cases
Fewer tests = fewer confirmed cases

Just start testing less to clear that hurdle, I guess.
Click to expand...
I wish everything keyed off hospitalizations.
 
Wow, only 9 steps? That’s like a Rubik’s cube...I don’t like it. I wonder if this is merely a formality so they can establish/document steps that are out of their control = bailout money when they cancel the season.
 
Last edited:



huskernut said:
I wish everything keyed off hospitalizations.
Click to expand...

Interesting thought. How do you see us regulating based on that? Example: if hospitalizations start climbing as the season progresses, what actions do you take to bring them back down? I'm thinking mainly from a sporting event standpoint. Varying the season based on hospitalizations kind of skews the seasons results.

Honest question because I have no idea how to make it work. It kind of seems like whatever gets played will be great but the results shouldn't be counted.
 
Last edited:
RedStones said:
Interesting thought. How do you see us regulating based on that? Example: if hospitalizations start climbing as the season progresses, what actions do you take to bring them back down? I'm thinking mainly from a sporting event standpoint. Varying the season based on hospitalizations kind of skews the seasons results.

Honest question because I have no idea how to make it work. It kind of seems like whatever gets played will be great but the results shouldn't be counted.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't overthink it. It's not going to match up to event management except in the general way the NCAA is using it here - as indication of overall prevalence of the virus. I was agreeing with Thill's observation that positive tests results arent a good indicator of actual prevalence because there are numerous different testing regimes both by geography and point in time. And in particular right now as he points out prevalence will look like it is jumping up as we bring more testing capacity on line simply because we're testing more people.

If we had a zillion tests we could do testing of random samples of the population in each geography over time and know if the actual prevalence was going up or down and tighten or loosen based on that (though with a still problematic lag effect) but we dont have enough tests for that by a long shot.

So hospitalizations would be a better indicator of prevalence, and anyway, they're not just a loose proxy for the problem like positive tests are, in a way the are the problem itself due to their use of resources, or at least much closer proxy for the real problem - deaths or life changing permanent afflictions.

Hospitalizations have their own drawbacks as a measure of course. Hospitals will say this is minor and maybe it is, but I believe they will flex their admissions criteria at least informally so they use most of their capacity during this crisis, either by inevitably cruel triage when overtzxed or by humanitarizn impulse when the have room.m. But still, I think it's a better measure than positive tests at this point.
 
Last edited:

Redleg said:
From the OWH: "SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey said on the radio this week that he thought each conference would have to make its own decisions on if and when football would be played, and that not every conference would need to say yes to playing for other conferences to green-light practices and games."

I take that as, "I really don't give a rip what ya'll are gonna do, here in the SEC we're gonna play football."
Click to expand...
I agree with your translation, and I think that it was smart of him to get that message out there early as it will impact the conversations that other conferences and presidents will be having, probably including the B1G. If Kevin Warren were to say something similar, it would be a green light to everyone else to move ahead with plans to play. I don't know that Warren has that kind of juice yet. The B1G is dominated by its member schools' presidents more than any other conference besides the Pac, and I don't know that Warren (being new) would have that kind of trust and authority to move ahead without their approval and support. I'd be surprised if there isn't at least a handful of university presidents in the B1G and probably the Pac that are hesitant, thinking like lawyers about the potential liability.

There would be strength in numbers. I'm concerned that a strong statement by the Pac pushing for caution would influence the B1G in that direction. If you look at the Power-5, the conference that I'd pick as most likely to NOT play would be the Pac, and the B1G sees itself much more in line with the Pac than the SEC because it's academics first. If the B1G echoes the SEC now, everyone will be on board. I could also see the SEC, ACC, and the Big 12 saying that they'll play, but the Pac and the B1G hedging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top