All Things COVID-19 College Football Impact

Veritas

Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
2,064
Reaction score
573
Points
113
I understand your take on this and it does make sense. What is a bit harsh is your comment on saying that the lives of people in nursing homes are not worth this. Do you have any loved ones that are in nursing homes that are suffering because of this? Seems like a heartless comment for you to make.
Mainly, the two things, Gopher football and nursing homes, have nothing to do with one another. One can be safely open while the other should be safely closed.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
13,496
Reaction score
1,795
Points
113
Not currently, but I have had grandparents who were in nursing homes in years past. The suffering happened before they died, not after. Each one, I was relieved to hear of their death after seeing what their lives had decayed into. Each had told me they were ready to go years before it happened.

This is starting to get way deeper than Gopher football, but I think there's a severe lack of nuance going on at the policy level, where we're saying "a death is a death" but not considering the quality of life, nor the duration of remaining life. That shotgun approach risks the economy, culture, education, health, and security of the vast majority of Americans who won't get sick or die.
Well, there's even nuance within your nuance, that we have to be careful about.

Sure, there are people who genuinely are "ready to go" and are hoping to simply not wake up one day. But there are also folks who aren't ready to go. We can't hand-waive these people away, just because they have less than 10 years left. Which I'm sure you agree and weren't suggesting otherwise.
 

fmlizard

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
380
Points
83
Mainly, the two things, Gopher football and nursing homes, have nothing to do with one another. One can be safely open while the other should be safely closed.
Exactly. That's the folly of closing a campus comprised of super low-risk 18-25 year olds, or all K-12 schools in the fall. We're pretending like doing one protects the other, because it's not PC to consider the "days of remaining life" vs. a binary life/death calculation, and to set policy based on age unless it benefits the elderly.
 

hungan1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
9,908
Reaction score
698
Points
113
I‘m sorry to near about your brother in law. Those excessive funeral and burial rules are capricious and flat out indefensible and are primarily for litigation defense, not because they do anything significant to prevent transmission of SARS—COV2.. We are doing this wrong on so many levels and in so many ways. Those same concerns about litigation are helping to shut down educations of tens of millions.
Thank you. I am going thru a gamut of emotions. Live and death come and go with or without the coronavirus. It is tough emotionally for all of us family when we can't grief properly.
 

go4rob

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
883
Reaction score
18
Points
18
This is not what we need. We have numerous graduates on the roster, including our starting QB.

My take is that I seriously doubt that the BIG10 will not make a unilateral decision one way or the other. I doubt that part of the conference will play while other parts do not. It will be all or nothing, whichever way they decide to go.
 

Pete smith

Active member
Joined
Sep 12, 2017
Messages
687
Reaction score
35
Points
28
Fauci - in January “the virus will not affect the U.S. same Doctor - March 3, “ no need to wear a face mask outside as they do no good”. When has he ever been correct?
 

MNVCGUY

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
8,651
Reaction score
1,227
Points
113
Lot of news coming out of colleges over the past few days. Nothing definitive but starting to see some movement finally in terms of what the plans for the fall are going to look like.
 

FredCoxRocks

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2014
Messages
866
Reaction score
326
Points
63
This is not what we need. We have numerous graduates on the roster, including our starting QB.

I think that's plausible. But only because Minnesota is usually the outlier in most things and likes to pat itself on the back for certain deeds regardless if they are wise or not (see the election of Ilhan Omar). We make decisions based on how good it will make us feel. We like to show off to others how progressive we are and we have this bizarre desire to just be liked and be noticed. We need other peoples approval.
We also tend to overreact and make harsh decisions for fear that we might be wrong if we do the opposite thing...we are very trepid. We fear that any decision will offend some people, yet we forget that by doing that we in turn are offending another group of people.
I do have faith that Minnesota will be the oddball. We usually are. Hell, we were the only ones that voted for Mondale.
That's about as political as I'll get.
 

2nd Degree Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
1,028
Reaction score
85
Points
48
My take is that I seriously doubt that the BIG10 will not make a unilateral decision one way or the other. I doubt that part of the conference will play while other parts do not. It will be all or nothing, whichever way they decide to go.
The Big Ten doesn't have the power to make a "unilateral" decision that would require all member schools to field football teams. They may decide whether or not they have a conference football season, but they cannot require member institutions to field teams and to play in an environment where some schools may not be open and there could be state/local laws impacting the ability of some member schools to gather, travel, open facilities, etc.

The conference could, I suppose, decide that they will only play a conference football season if all members are willing and able to play it, but I don't know that they want to be in a position where one or two schools can dictate what the rest choose to do.
 

Just Gopher It!!

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2020
Messages
679
Reaction score
288
Points
63
I wonder if it has anything to do with Minneapolis being more populated than say Iowa City or Lincoln?

I fear how far that might set back our program if everyone else gets to play and not us.
Might have to do with
I think that's plausible. But only because Minnesota is usually the outlier in most things and likes to pat itself on the back for certain deeds regardless if they are wise or not (see the election of Ilhan Omar). We make decisions based on how good it will make us feel. We like to show off to others how progressive we are and we have this bizarre desire to just be liked and be noticed. We need other peoples approval.
We also tend to overreact and make harsh decisions for fear that we might be wrong if we do the opposite thing...we are very trepid. We fear that any decision will offend some people, yet we forget that by doing that we in turn are offending another group of people.
I do have faith that Minnesota will be the oddball. We usually are. Hell, we were the only ones that voted for Mondale.
That's about as political as I'll get.
There are better political oddballs than Fritz -

1589387952097.png
1589388010593.png
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
13,496
Reaction score
1,795
Points
113
The Big Ten doesn't have the power to make a "unilateral" decision that would require all member schools to field football teams. They may decide whether or not they have a conference football season, but they cannot require member institutions to field teams and to play in an environment where some schools may not be open and there could be state/local laws impacting the ability of some member schools to gather, travel, open facilities, etc.

The conference could, I suppose, decide that they will only play a conference football season if all members are willing and able to play it, but I don't know that they want to be in a position where one or two schools can dictate what the rest choose to do.
If Minnesota and Rutgers are stupid enough to be the lone holdouts, they deserve to be stripped of their Big Ten money for the year.

Money has a way of persuading action.

If Ohio St, Penn St, Michigan’s, Wisconsin, and Iowa are ready to go, you’re silly if you think the conference is just going to say “aw shucks guys, Minnesota, Illinois, and Rutgers aren’t ready yet, so I guess we’ll all just have to forfeit hundreds of millions in TV contracts”.
 

FredCoxRocks

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2014
Messages
866
Reaction score
326
Points
63
Might have to do with


There are better political oddballs than Fritz -

View attachment 8002
View attachment 8003
True. However, to accentuate oddness, you should have instead provided an image of the elderly Stassen with his toupee...the one that required a chinstrap.
Also, nothing against Mondale (I don't find him too odd), but its just a shining example of how Minnesota will do something totally different than everyone else...right or wrong.
 

tikited

Me
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
13,737
Reaction score
748
Points
113
If Minnesota and Rutgers are stupid enough to be the lone holdouts, they deserve to be stripped of their Big Ten money for the year.

Money has a way of persuading action.

If Ohio St, Penn St, Michigan’s, Wisconsin, and Iowa are ready to go, you’re silly if you think the conference is just going to say “aw shucks guys, Minnesota, Illinois, and Rutgers aren’t ready yet, so I guess we’ll all just have to forfeit hundreds of millions in TV contracts”.
I was just talking to another Gopher season ticket holder about this last night. He thought there wouldn't be any University dumb enough to be the hold-out for starting the season. I said there will be at least two. I predicted Illinois and Minnesota. If there are any Universities willing to screw up by choice it would be the U for sure.
 

MNVCGUY

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
8,651
Reaction score
1,227
Points
113
I was just talking to another Gopher season ticket holder about this last night. He thought there wouldn't be any University dumb enough to be the hold-out for starting the season. I said there will be at least two. I predicted Illinois and Minnesota. If there are any Universities willing to screw up by choice it would be the U for sure.
I am hopeful that it won't be the case when it is all said and done but it would be the ultimate Gopher Football is cursed thing if when the program finally seems to be on the verge of being relevant the University decides to go against the grain and be one of the few places not to play football this fall.

Again, I don't think it will come to that and I honestly think it will be all or nothing as far as the Big Ten is concerned.
 

GoGophersUMN

Active member
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
808
Reaction score
83
Points
28
I wouldn’t describe what is happening here as “peaking.” That curve is pretty damn flat, and about 80% of deaths are from nursing homes (Those will not rise or fall, depending on whether we have football).
Cases are increasing daily and are projected to start decreasing daily in a week or two. That's a peak.
 

tikited

Me
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
13,737
Reaction score
748
Points
113
I am hopeful that it won't be the case when it is all said and done but it would be the ultimate Gopher Football is cursed thing if when the program finally seems to be on the verge of being relevant the University decides to go against the grain and be one of the few places not to play football this fall.

Again, I don't think it will come to that and I honestly think it will be all or nothing as far as the Big Ten is concerned.
That is precisely why I "know" it will be the U if anything like discussed happens. I can't imagine any true Gopher fan not knowing deep down that the U would be that University.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
13,496
Reaction score
1,795
Points
113
I am hopeful that it won't be the case when it is all said and done but it would be the ultimate Gopher Football is cursed thing if when the program finally seems to be on the verge of being relevant the University decides to go against the grain and be one of the few places not to play football this fall.

Again, I don't think it will come to that and I honestly think it will be all or nothing as far as the Big Ten is concerned.
Then it will be all. As in, all league members are allowed to resume ... if they choose.

But when the dollars are that high for one specific aspect — football — there can’t be any “free riders”.

So, as was said, there’s still a chance that the Big Ten can get it right, but Minnesota f’s it up. And if so, it will be because of regents like that one jackass.
 

FireDaveLee

Grizzled Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
1,491
Reaction score
36
Points
48
Say that that Michigan Rivals tidbit has some legs to it....would it be due to the University making the decision or the Walz & legislature making the decision? Are they one in the same?
 

nsmike

Active member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
2,899
Reaction score
19
Points
38
What percentage of students need to be on campus? I can see a partial reopening for those students in majors that have a large number of lab classes. The School of Science and Engineering (IT), Biological Sciences, and Nursing come to mind. I can see classes that have huge lecture halls being done online along with others that don't require a hands on component.
 

Lakeville Goldy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,777
Reaction score
65
Points
48
Say that that Michigan Rivals tidbit has some legs to it....would it be due to the University making the decision or the Walz & legislature making the decision? Are they one in the same?
I wouldn't say they're the same, but they're not independent, either. Walz can say no sports at any public MN school and the U will be obliged to obey. If he is trying to look like he's letting the individual schools choose, he could say they recommend against it, and it would be really tough to go against that. Or behind the scenes Walz could tell the U he won't sign any bill that includes money for the U unless they cancel football. I say they're not the same because Walz and the legislature could say go for it and the U regents may decide it's still too risky.

My guess, there are way too many big schools like the U that don't want to be "the" school but aren't comfortable having a season and that they will have the NCAA say no fall sports and then all the individual schools and conferences can be "off the hook". "Oh, we would have played, but because the NCAA said we couldn't..." whether that's true or not and whether the NCAA truly has authority or not.
 
Last edited:

2nd Degree Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
1,028
Reaction score
85
Points
48
If Minnesota and Rutgers are stupid enough to be the lone holdouts, they deserve to be stripped of their Big Ten money for the year.
If it turns out that some schools play and some do not, I am sure that there would be an adjustment to the revenue distribution, just as there would be adjustments to the television contracts, sponsorship agreements, etc. Who would suggest otherwise?

Money has a way of persuading action.
It sure does. Again, who would suggest otherwise? But that doesn't mean that it will be the only motivating factor and, of course, the people making the decisons on whether to play football are not the same people who will be making the decisions on restrictions that make playing football in any particular jurisdiction feasible or even lawful.

If Ohio St, Penn St, Michigan’s, Wisconsin, and Iowa are ready to go, you’re silly if you think the conference is just going to say “aw shucks guys, Minnesota, Illinois, and Rutgers aren’t ready yet, so I guess we’ll all just have to forfeit hundreds of millions in TV contracts”.
I was not suggesting anything of the sort and I don't think that is what will happen. I replied to a post from go4rob about the Big Ten making a "unilateral" decision on whether all member schools play or don't. I merely pointed out that the conference can't dictate whether all member schools field football teams this fall. They can decide there will be conference football or there will not, but each school will ultimately have to decide its own path. In theory, the schools could decide to act collectively, but that is unlikely as it would mean that even one holdout would scuttle the season for all. I don't think that will happen, but it would be the only way the conference could make a "unilateral" decision as suggested by go4rob that it could enforce.
 

PitinoFan

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
4,832
Reaction score
1,382
Points
113
Cases are increasing daily and are projected to start decreasing daily in a week or two. That's a peak.
You can call it whatever you want. It’s more of a flat curve than a “peak.” Sure, if they increase testing, they’ll find more positive cases. I’m not even sure whether that will be the case. The numbers of hospitalizations and ICU cases are more relevant, since those are not subject to variations in testing numbers, and the reason we were told everything needed to be shut down. I think we’ve successfully flattened the curve.

 

Just Gopher It!!

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2020
Messages
679
Reaction score
288
Points
63
True. However, to accentuate oddness, you should have instead provided an image of the elderly Stassen with his toupee...the one that required a chinstrap.
Also, nothing against Mondale (I don't find him too odd), but its just a shining example of how Minnesota will do something totally different than everyone else...right or wrong.
Impressive - wasn't sure how long it would take for Harold to get recongnized; he ran nine time unsuccessfully for the GOP nomination - I love the tenacity and hubris to keep running.

Thanks for challenging me to improve my best! Here you go -

1589397318701.png
 

swelna

Active member
Joined
Sep 20, 2016
Messages
299
Reaction score
37
Points
28
Say that that Michigan Rivals tidbit has some legs to it....would it be due to the University making the decision or the Walz & legislature making the decision? Are they one in the same?
My take was more that since the NCAA said no sports if students aren't allowed on campus that maybe Rutgers and Minnesota were still debating no fall classes on campus, which then by extension mean they couldn't have fall sports due to the NCAA.
 

GoGophersUMN

Active member
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
808
Reaction score
83
Points
28
You can call it whatever you want. It’s more of a flat curve than a “peak.” Sure, if they increase testing, they’ll find more positive cases. I’m not even sure whether that will be the case. The numbers of hospitalizations and ICU cases are more relevant, since those are not subject to variations in testing numbers, and the reason we were told everything needed to be shut down. I think we’ve successfully flattened the curve.

All curves have peaks. A shallow curve like Minnesota has still has a peak, just a much lower one than a steeper curve like New York had.

Our peak is low compared to other states but in terms of timing, we're approaching our peak while other states hit their peak weeks ago.

I'm wondering if the people saying Minnesota is likely to not play are seeing the numbers each day and basing their thoughts on that.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
13,496
Reaction score
1,795
Points
113
If it turns out that some schools play and some do not, I am sure that there would be an adjustment to the revenue distribution, just as there would be adjustments to the television contracts, sponsorship agreements, etc. Who would suggest otherwise?



It sure does. Again, who would suggest otherwise? But that doesn't mean that it will be the only motivating factor and, of course, the people making the decisons on whether to play football are not the same people who will be making the decisions on restrictions that make playing football in any particular jurisdiction feasible or even lawful.


I was not suggesting anything of the sort and I don't think that is what will happen. I replied to a post from go4rob about the Big Ten making a "unilateral" decision on whether all member schools play or don't. I merely pointed out that the conference can't dictate whether all member schools field football teams this fall. They can decide there will be conference football or there will not, but each school will ultimately have to decide its own path. In theory, the schools could decide to act collectively, but that is unlikely as it would mean that even one holdout would scuttle the season for all. I don't think that will happen, but it would be the only way the conference could make a "unilateral" decision as suggested by go4rob that it could enforce.
No, the conference could unilaterally give its blessing to a football season for all schools that are able and willing to participate. I promise you that the big time football schools will play. Fans in the stands is something that still has to be hammered out, but the games will be on TV.

Is Minnesota going to be a big time football school? We will see.
 

PitinoFan

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
4,832
Reaction score
1,382
Points
113
All curves have peaks. A shallow curve like Minnesota has still has a peak, just a much lower one than a steeper curve like New York had.

Our peak is low compared to other states but in terms of timing, we're approaching our peak while other states hit their peak weeks ago.

I'm wondering if the people saying Minnesota is likely to not play are seeing the numbers each day and basing their thoughts on that.
I posted the link to the state numbers above. Do you see anything there that leads you to believe the worst is yet to come? I’m not just talking about a few days with slightly higher numbers.

BTW, I knew what you meant by “peak.” it’s possible that point has already been reached, and we’ll just see relatively flat numbers, as the nursing homes continue to ravaged by the virus.
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
152
Points
63
If Minnesota and Rutgers are stupid enough to be the lone holdouts, they deserve to be stripped of their Big Ten money for the year.

Money has a way of persuading action.

If Ohio St, Penn St, Michigan’s, Wisconsin, and Iowa are ready to go, you’re silly if you think the conference is just going to say “aw shucks guys, Minnesota, Illinois, and Rutgers aren’t ready yet, so I guess we’ll all just have to forfeit hundreds of millions in TV contracts”.
I don't think it's that simple. What drives the BTN gravy train? Cable/Satellite/Streaming service fees. Lots of Minnesota fans pay into that. The Big 10 could sill give Minnesota (or any other current school) a taste to keep them a viable conference partner both long and short term.
 
Top Bottom