Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NCAA reduces amount of games in all sports for this year.

Collapse

Support The Site!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Along the lines of whether a football season will be played what type of seating arrangements or what percentage of capacity would be reasonable. My guess is about 50%.

    Comment


    • #17

      I also have doubts about there even being a football season. What happens when a player, coach, trainer test positive? Do you isolate the whole team for 14 days? Wait until school starts and the football team is exposed to a few thousand more students. These are college kids and they're going to mingle and go to keg parties, etc. Look what happened over Memorial Day at the Lake of the Ozarks, those were college kids and you think it's going to be any different when they get back to school.

      It's already starting at Kansas State with two of their players just testing positive in the first week of workouts. A kid can test negative today, but turn-up positive tomorrow. And what about the student population in general? I read where one university is setting aside a couple of dorms to isolate kids that test positive or have come into contact with someone who tested positive. They're going to need more than just a couple of dorms for that purpose.

      I not only have my doubts about there being a fall sports season, but whether there will even be on campus classes once this whole thing blows up and it will become a giant cluster mess.

      Comment


      • #18
        I agree that this whole thing is going to blow up into a big mess and I think there's a 50% chance that all the students will be sent packing by Oct. 1st.

        Comment


        • #19
          Two more K-State players tested positive..... so overnight it doubled to four players. Will it double again tomorrow? Even trying to keep your team secluded in a bubble environment is no guarantee of avoiding the virus. Unfortunately, this is probably going to be the reality for every team

          Comment


          • #20

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by FlyinLion View Post
              http://themiaa.com/news/2020/6/16/20...d-by-miaa.aspx

              At first glance MW-LU, ESU-UNK, FH-MSSU, NSU-WU, PSU-UCO and NW-UCM are the games skipped/dropped in the shortened schedule
              With UCO not playing Pitt, ESU not playing UNK and NW not playing UCM it tells me that in the future the MIAA will double down on the SILO. Those teams would likely be in the same regions geographically if the conference went to divisions/pods. If cutting down travel was a priority they would have cut down some of the more distant road trips.
              Go Bronchos!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by UCObluejay View Post

                With UCO not playing Pitt, ESU not playing UNK and NW not playing UCM it tells me that in the future the MIAA will double down on the SILO. Those teams would likely be in the same regions geographically if the conference went to divisions/pods. If cutting down travel was a priority they would have cut down some of the more distant road trips.
                The conference announced that it was done via blind draw.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Crap, I just had a feeling that the blind draw would rob the Mules and Bearcats of their early season game in Warrensburg.

                  Dropping one game off the schedule means what in the big picture.......absolutely nothing. This whole thing is a cluster mess run by idiots.
                  Last edited by Shanghai Mule; 06-18-2020, 04:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Shanghai Mule View Post
                    Crap, I just had a feeling that the blind draw would rob the Mules and Bearcats of their early season game in Warrensburg.

                    Dropping one game off the schedule means what in the big picture.......absolutely nothing. This whole thing is a cluster mess run by idiots.
                    I'm all in favor of precautions throughout this pandemic, but I couldn't agree more with this. What's the point of shortening the season by one game on the front end? It doesn't seem likely to have any measurable impact on minimizing risk. While it might save the 6 conference schools that were going to be on the road a few thousand dollars, it will cost the 6 schools that lost a home game a similar amount, if not more. It doesn't do anything to make the likelihood of a complete season with some form of postseason any higher.

                    If the NCAA was going to pursue some sort of half measure, it should've been an 8-9 game regular season of conference-only games, accelerated as much as possible, and then a 16 team postseason made up of only conference champions (letting the conferences decide their champions in case of ties, uncertainty, whatever).

                    If they had gone with an 8 game regular season and started games Aug. 29th, that would've had 90% of teams done by October 17th and the entire season over by November 14th. Push both of those back a week for a 9 game season. There's a handful of kinks that would've needed to be worked out (the one independent team, the conferences with odd numbers of teams), but I have some confidence they could've been resolved.

                    Of course, perhaps the most likely situation is that using either no measure, a bad half measure or a better half measure, the most likely situation is that we get 5-6 games into the season and a second wave hits and none of this matters and the 17 or so remaining undefeated teams in the country are all left pondering what might've been. I already endured that with KU basektball, so I could deal with it for football.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by GorillaBred View Post

                      I'm all in favor of precautions throughout this pandemic, but I couldn't agree more with this. What's the point of shortening the season by one game on the front end? It doesn't seem likely to have any measurable impact on minimizing risk. While it might save the 6 conference schools that were going to be on the road a few thousand dollars, it will cost the 6 schools that lost a home game a similar amount, if not more. It doesn't do anything to make the likelihood of a complete season with some form of postseason any higher.

                      If the NCAA was going to pursue some sort of half measure, it should've been an 8-9 game regular season of conference-only games, accelerated as much as possible, and then a 16 team postseason made up of only conference champions (letting the conferences decide their champions in case of ties, uncertainty, whatever).

                      If they had gone with an 8 game regular season and started games Aug. 29th, that would've had 90% of teams done by October 17th and the entire season over by November 14th. Push both of those back a week for a 9 game season. There's a handful of kinks that would've needed to be worked out (the one independent team, the conferences with odd numbers of teams), but I have some confidence they could've been resolved.

                      Of course, perhaps the most likely situation is that using either no measure, a bad half measure or a better half measure, the most likely situation is that we get 5-6 games into the season and a second wave hits and none of this matters and the 17 or so remaining undefeated teams in the country are all left pondering what might've been. I already endured that with KU basektball, so I could deal with it for football.
                      Second wave hell. The first wave is just now getting to MIAA country. It will likely still be here in September.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by GorillaBred View Post

                        (1) What's the point of shortening the season by one game on the front end? It doesn't seem likely to have any measurable impact on minimizing risk. While it might save the 6 conference schools that were going to be on the road a few thousand dollars, it will cost the 6 schools that lost a home game a similar amount, if not more. It doesn't do anything to make the likelihood of a complete season with some form of postseason any higher.

                        (2) If the NCAA was going to pursue some sort of half measure, it should've been an 8-9 game regular season of conference-only games, accelerated as much as possible, and then a 16 team postseason made up of only conference champions (letting the conferences decide their champions in case of ties, uncertainty, whatever).

                        (3) If they had gone with an 8 game regular season and started games Aug. 29th, that would've had 90% of teams done by October 17th and the entire season over by November 14th. Push both of those back a week for a 9 game season. There's a handful of kinks that would've needed to be worked out (the one independent team, the conferences with odd numbers of teams), but I have some confidence they could've been resolved.

                        Of course, perhaps the most likely situation is that using either no measure, a bad half measure or a better half measure, the most likely situation is that we get 5-6 games into the season and a second wave hits and none of this matters and the 17 or so remaining undefeated teams in the country are all left pondering what might've been. I already endured that with KU basektball, so I could deal with it for football.
                        (1) It was a cost cutting measure, not a reducing risk measure and it applies to schools outside the MIAA.

                        (2) A percentage of every sport's schedule was reduced. I agree with it being an even number even though I prefer an odd numbered amount of games. There are only 15 qualifying conferences so, even in your scenario, there would need to be a way to find the sixteenth.

                        (3) I agree on moving the schedule up but it would have had to coincide with schools moving their academic calendar as well. With the reduction of one regular season game and the reduction of the playoffs from 28 to 16, there would have been even more savings in the budget and a greater chance to play a complete season before a second wave hit.

                        Aug 15 - Students Report to School. This would allow for the typical three weeks of practice before the first game. Programs would not have to pay to house students during this time because dorms and dining facilities would be open. This would save a lot of money.

                        Sep 5 - Game 1

                        Sep 12 - Game 2

                        Sept 19 - Game 3

                        Sept 26 - Game 4

                        Oct 3 - Game 5

                        Oct 10 - Game 6

                        Oct 17 - Game 7

                        Oct 24 - Game 8

                        Oct 31 - Game 9

                        Nov 7 - Game 10 (91% of teams would be done at this point)

                        Nov 14 - Round 1

                        Nov 21 - Round 2

                        Nov 28 - Round 3

                        December 5 - Championship


                        Comment


                        • #27
                          That definitely makes sense.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Brandon View Post

                            (1) It was a cost cutting measure, not a reducing risk measure and it applies to schools outside the MIAA.

                            (2) A percentage of every sport's schedule was reduced. I agree with it being an even number even though I prefer an odd numbered amount of games. There are only 15 qualifying conferences so, even in your scenario, there would need to be a way to find the sixteenth.

                            (3) I agree on moving the schedule up but it would have had to coincide with schools moving their academic calendar as well. With the reduction of one regular season game and the reduction of the playoffs from 28 to 16, there would have been even more savings in the budget and a greater chance to play a complete season before a second wave hit.
                            If the idiots being described were MIAA idiots, I did not mean to agree with that part of the post. I was referring to the NCAA idiots.

                            In the scenario I described, we're obviously throwing a number of the traditional division rules out the window, so we might as well throw the qualifying conference rule out the window as well and let the GNAC feel like they matter. I agree it's not perfect and giving the same PO treatment to the 4 team GNAC as the 16 team PSAC or 14 team NSIC would be silly if we were doing it under normal circumstances, but part of trying to operate through a pandemic is making those sort of concessions to what seems best in order to arrive at what seems achievable.

                            It just seems to me that the costs cut via this reduction are barely more than de minimis. Coaches salaries aren't being prorated down to 10/11ths of what they otherwise would be and the scholarships aren't being prorated down. Half a game of travel and half a game of game day stadium operations are the extent of the savings. That's a negligible share of the costs of running a football program. For schools going from 6 to 5 home games who have good attendance, this will be a net negative on their program balance sheets.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by GorillaBred View Post

                              (1) If the idiots being described were MIAA idiots, I did not mean to agree with that part of the post. I was referring to the NCAA idiots.

                              It just seems to me that the costs cut via this reduction are barely more than de minimis. Coaches salaries aren't being prorated down to 10/11ths of what they otherwise would be and the scholarships aren't being prorated down. Half a game of travel and half a game of game day stadium operations are the extent of the savings. That's a negligible share of the costs of running a football program. For schools going from 6 to 5 home games who have good attendance, this will be a net negative on their program balance sheets.
                              (1) Gotcha. I didn't pick up on that.

                              (2) The rule was obviously made to appease all schools and all sports. There would have been a huge backlash if football had not been reduced. For schools like Central, Northwest, and Pitt, losing the home game is a big deal. For some schools in other conferences, there was little to be gained financially by hosting a game and there was a lot to be saved by the visiting school not having to pay to travel.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Brandon View Post

                                (1) Gotcha. I didn't pick up on that.

                                (2) The rule was obviously made to appease all schools and all sports. There would have been a huge backlash if football had not been reduced. For schools like Central, Northwest, and Pitt, losing the home game is a big deal. For some schools in other conferences, there was little to be gained financially by hosting a game and there was a lot to be saved by the visiting school not having to pay to travel.
                                I think we sometimes forget how good we have it in the MIAA in terms of support. I had someone tell me they didn't think there should be football if fans weren't allowed and my response was that most D2 teams play in front of empty stadiums most weeks. According to the NCAA stats site the Lady Hornet basketball team averaged more fans per game than 46 D2 football teams last year. There were 16 that were listed as averaging under 1000 per game.

                                I've been told that a football road trip could cost $10,000 once you take into account buses, meals, and hotel rooms.

                                Comment

                                Ad3

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X