FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Pat Coleman]

I'm assuming they were not polled, because I'll bet if you lined up all the Johnnie and Gustie team members and asked them they would say that they weren't asked.

Surely they aren't going to ask every student-athlete in every instance where a game might be moved because that's pretty cumbersome. Ten contests for tomorrow were moved. The conference could have solicited feedback from the SAAC when making the policy, but even so, something done for the safety of the student-athlete doesn't have to be ratified by the student-athlete.

Oh Pat stop it.  Listen, the last guy in the world I would debate D3 sports with is you. As a businessman, I respect what you have accomplished here. People that enjoy these sites that don't realize how much it took/takes to make them work are not in my world. I know better.

Yes, I get overall ability of the institutions to run the show. My point was that while the concern was over the players, that I doubted that the players would agree.

Oh Bob ... ok? I thought we were having a good exchange of ideas.

My point is that the bolded text is basically moot. You may say that it's inappropriate, but rules enacted for the players' safety are not really up to the players.

[Mr.MIAC]

Some people enjoy their viewing pleasure...nothing else matters.

Surely you must realise that your repeated effort to paint any questioning of MIAC policy decisions as the base machinations of self-interested player abusers is absurd.

I don't think there are any machinations worthy of discussion. Maybe some folks are maneuvering behind the scenes, but that's not my interest. What's interesting is that some folks are all about attacking safety measures based on some notion of what football should entail. Maybe if we started with what's safe, the players and the game would be better off. It might not be as fun to watch, but that's the price of safeguarding our children.

[Robert Zimmerman]

Elk River just beat Buffalo in high school football 80-70 . . .

[BDB]

I'm assuming they were not polled, because I'll bet if you lined up all the Johnnie and Gustie team members and asked them they would say that they weren't asked.

Surely they aren't going to ask every student-athlete in every instance where a game might be moved because that's pretty cumbersome. Ten contests for tomorrow were moved. The conference could have solicited feedback from the SAAC when making the policy, but even so, something done for the safety of the student-athlete doesn't have to be ratified by the student-athlete.

Oh Pat stop it.  Listen, the last guy in the world I would debate D3 sports with is you. As a businessman, I respect what you have accomplished here. People that enjoy these sites that don't realize how much it took/takes to make them work are not in my world. I know better.

Yes, I get overall ability of the institutions to run the show. My point was that while the concern was over the players, that I doubted that the players would agree.

Oh Bob ... ok? I thought we were having a good exchange of ideas.

My point is that the bolded text is basically moot. You may say that it's inappropriate, but rules enacted for the players' safety are not really up to the players.

Yup I get your point. I don't know, I see players get injured at D3 and it's not on the school it's on their own insurance. So, in these heat situations somehow it is up to the school/conference to decide everything even though they are not totally liable. How else could it be? I don't know.

I meant what I said about these sites. People don't see all the risk and work. I do.

[Pat Coleman]

I meant what I said about these sites. People don't see all the risk and work. I do.

Thank you. I appreciate that and I didn't mean to gloss over that when you said it a moment ago.

It's risk and it's work but it is also still fun -- thank goodness!

[faunch]

Am I in an episode of the Twilight Zone? I leave for 5 hours (somebody has to make the money) and it's a Johnnie-Tommie lovefest!
sfury & UST Bench are going steady and it all started over their agreement of the new MIAC heat policy and now Rev & faunch are exploring the possibilities of a first date Scotch tasting tour!
Has the world gone mad??!! 

Nope, Nyet, Nada!!!

[OzJohnnie]

Why have a game called football at all if it only includes "what's safe"?  The game is inherently risky and the adults who play it (there are no children in the MIAC as the participants are all of the age of majority) accept a degree of risk. Of course the proper standard is unduly risky. That's why acts like spear tackles and clotheslines have been rightly eliminated from the game.

But even then the risk has not been demonstrated, merely asserted. It's easy enough for the MIAC to detail why they reached the decision to take action but when Pat generously offered them just that opportunity they failed to take it. Instead Pat was forced to offer a 20-year-old NFL in-training anecdote that, unfortunately, had no bearing in the risk of heat in an MIAC game.

Additionally, the MIAC failed to take the opportunity to explain why they believe this is the most effective action to take. Instead they offered waffle and the concession that this may not be the correct thing to do but nevertheless declared it a move in the right direction (again assuming the antecedent, which hasn't been established).

Basically, a little transparency would go a long way toward bringing stakeholders into the fold and gaining widespread support. No one wants to endanger any students (a disingenuous claim to repeatedly make, by the way) but people are rightfully wary of poor decisions made on little fact and a lot of feeling that have significant and deleterious impacts on the game.

Given the opportunity to demonstrate community leadership and engagement , the MIAC instead offered a master class on balls-up 101.

[sowilson]

Only a quarter-mile walk from the Gustavus locker room to the field, so I'm sure they'll stay out of the middle school.  Kind of shocking Gustavus hasn't put up lights or a jumbotron yet.  Best place to watch a game that I've seen in D3.

It is a pretty good stadium.  They would be smart to install lights and an inflatable dome for use during the winter.  As Minnesota continues to get warmer we'll have more need for night practices, illumination when it's wet/cloudy, or like tomorrow night games. MIAC schools should be encouraged to install lights on their football fields.

[Mr.MIAC]

Why have a game called football at all if it only includes "what's safe"?  The game is inherently risky and the adults who play it (there are no children in the MIAC as the participants are all of the age of majority) accept a degree of risk. Of course the proper standard is unduly risky. That's why acts like spear tackles and clotheslines have been rightly eliminated from the game.

But even then the risk has not been demonstrated, merely asserted. It's easy enough for the MIAC to detail why they reached the decision to take action but when Pat generously offered them just that opportunity they failed to take it. Instead Pat was forced to offer a 20-year-old NFL in-training anecdote that, unfortunately, had no bearing in the risk of heat in an MIAC game.

Additionally, the MIAC failed to take the opportunity to explain why they believe this is the most effective action to take. Instead they offered waffle and the concession that this may not be the correct thing to do but nevertheless declared it a move in the right direction (again assuming the antecedent, which hasn't been established).

Basically, a little transparency would go a long way toward bringing stakeholders into the fold and gaining widespread support. No one wants to endanger any students (a disingenuous claim to repeatedly make, by the way) but people are rightfully wary of poor decisions made on little fact and a lot of feeling that have significant and deleterious impacts on the game.

Given the opportunity to demonstrate community leadership and engagement , the MIAC instead offered a master class on balls-up 101.

You're pushing really hard to have young men potentially suffer for your amusement. That's interesting.

There are two ways to look at this situation:

1) The MIAC hasn't shown why these measures are necessary; therefore, they are unwarranted.

2) These measures might make the players safer; therefore, they might be warranted.

I don't think anyone in the MIAC knows what's the best approach. I don't either, but that's not really the point. We shouldn't be starting from preconceived notions of what football is meant to entail. We should be starting from a principle of safety, and then make the game conform to those requirements.

[faunch]

Speaking of "safe" football...I was a high school game tonight where a PAT snap was bungled. The ball rolled about 12 yard and the holder scrambled to pick up the ball but dropped it and was tackled. The kicker (a former soccer player or foreign exchange student I'm assuming) just ambled about and finally picked up the ball as two defenders converged. He stood straight up with a live ball in his hands at the 25 yard line as a defender running full speed trucked him...then the ref threw a flag for a clean hit on an offensive player standing and holding a live ball. The kicked should have been penalized for being stupid...just fall on the ball for crap sake!

What I still don't understand about the call was that the ball was live...albeit 25 yards from the goal line. I get it that this kicker wasn't going to be able to do anything but he made the mistake of picking up a live ball and standing flat footed with it.
The whistle had not been blown and the defender was running full speed and couldn't stop.
The officials assessed a 15 yard penalty for unnecessary roughness on the kickoff but did not give them another opportunity for the PAT.
I wish I could share the video I shot however it is not mine to share.

[faunch]

Why have a game called football at all if it only includes "what's safe"?  The game is inherently risky and the adults who play it (there are no children in the MIAC as the participants are all of the age of majority) accept a degree of risk. Of course the proper standard is unduly risky. That's why acts like spear tackles and clotheslines have been rightly eliminated from the game.

But even then the risk has not been demonstrated, merely asserted. It's easy enough for the MIAC to detail why they reached the decision to take action but when Pat generously offered them just that opportunity they failed to take it. Instead Pat was forced to offer a 20-year-old NFL in-training anecdote that, unfortunately, had no bearing in the risk of heat in an MIAC game.

Additionally, the MIAC failed to take the opportunity to explain why they believe this is the most effective action to take. Instead they offered waffle and the concession that this may not be the correct thing to do but nevertheless declared it a move in the right direction (again assuming the antecedent, which hasn't been established).

Basically, a little transparency would go a long way toward bringing stakeholders into the fold and gaining widespread support. No one wants to endanger any students (a disingenuous claim to repeatedly make, by the way) but people are rightfully wary of poor decisions made on little fact and a lot of feeling that have significant and deleterious impacts on the game.

Given the opportunity to demonstrate community leadership and engagement , the MIAC instead offered a master class on balls-up 101.

You're pushing really hard to have young men potentially suffer for your amusement. That's interesting.

There are two ways to look at this situation:

1) The MIAC hasn't shown why these measures are necessary; therefore, they are unwarranted.

2) These measures might make the players safer; therefore, they might be warranted.

I don't think anyone in the MIAC knows what's the best approach. I don't either, but that's not really the point. We shouldn't be starting from preconceived notions of what football is meant to entail. We should be starting from a principle of safety, and then make the game conform to those requirements.

Would that include playing through the whistle???  Asking for a neighbor.

[Mr.MIAC]

Why have a game called football at all if it only includes "what's safe"?  The game is inherently risky and the adults who play it (there are no children in the MIAC as the participants are all of the age of majority) accept a degree of risk. Of course the proper standard is unduly risky. That's why acts like spear tackles and clotheslines have been rightly eliminated from the game.

But even then the risk has not been demonstrated, merely asserted. It's easy enough for the MIAC to detail why they reached the decision to take action but when Pat generously offered them just that opportunity they failed to take it. Instead Pat was forced to offer a 20-year-old NFL in-training anecdote that, unfortunately, had no bearing in the risk of heat in an MIAC game.

Additionally, the MIAC failed to take the opportunity to explain why they believe this is the most effective action to take. Instead they offered waffle and the concession that this may not be the correct thing to do but nevertheless declared it a move in the right direction (again assuming the antecedent, which hasn't been established).

Basically, a little transparency would go a long way toward bringing stakeholders into the fold and gaining widespread support. No one wants to endanger any students (a disingenuous claim to repeatedly make, by the way) but people are rightfully wary of poor decisions made on little fact and a lot of feeling that have significant and deleterious impacts on the game.

Given the opportunity to demonstrate community leadership and engagement , the MIAC instead offered a master class on balls-up 101.

You're pushing really hard to have young men potentially suffer for your amusement. That's interesting.

There are two ways to look at this situation:

1) The MIAC hasn't shown why these measures are necessary; therefore, they are unwarranted.

2) These measures might make the players safer; therefore, they might be warranted.

I don't think anyone in the MIAC knows what's the best approach. I don't either, but that's not really the point. We shouldn't be starting from preconceived notions of what football is meant to entail. We should be starting from a principle of safety, and then make the game conform to those requirements.

Would that include playing through the whistle???  Asking for a neighbor.

Yep, other than when MUC is involved. As an aside, why am I serving as the moral compass on this one? I'm supposed to be the asshole on this forum...

[bluenote]

I want SJU to come to the CatDome this year! I know it won't happen... but we can only dream a nightmare! LOL

[OzJohnnie]

I can only bang my head against the wall so many times until I’ve got a headache.

I was hoping that someone would make an effort to at least demonstrate that a game, as opposed to early pre-season training, in the heat is dangerous and must be closely managed for heat issues.  A tough ask, I know, as I can’t find a single reference to any sort of serious in-game heat injury but it must exist or else the MIAC wouldn’t have taken this step, right?  I can’t even find a reference to anyone expressing a concern about heat related play in gridiron.  But that’s surely due to woefully inadequate search skills.

I do know, however, that I happen to live on the driest and hottest continent this delicate blue orb hosts.  And here heat related sports science is virtually a primary industry.  In-game heat protocols are universal and well-respected. And so far less reactive than what the MIAC has instituted that I’m sure this was a poorly considered decision. #2 was quite a serious gymnast at one point and she trained unless the wet-bulb temp reached 36 on Satan’s scale (97 Fahrenheit). And now that she coaches she has heat awareness as part of her first aid training and coaches certification.  Despite rumours of ceaseless Aussie drunkenness, I’m pretty sure the parents here are not eager to endanger their kids, or themselves,  for selfish entertainment purposes.

Moral compass, indeed.

EDIT: http://smjfl.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AFL-Victoria-Extreme-Weather-Policy-2017.pdf

Temperatures more extreme, reactions less so.  In short:

* Over 36 (97) then the game will not commence.  If it increases to over 36 during the game it is paused or stopped, depending.
* Over 32 (90) then the game will be shortened, umpire enforced re-hydration, longer quarter time breaks, extra substitutions, spray fans, ice vests, etc.
* Below 32 then it's play on.

(The rules I list above are for the small semi-pro leagues which have similar financial resources and intensity as a mid-tier MIAC team. The amateur leagues, more akin to VFL softball in intensity, will consider delaying matches if the temp is 32 at game time.)

[Pat Coleman]

I said earlier the MIAC is open to revisiting the temperature standard used. Thanks for sharing the details.