FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[miac952]

On the topic of playing in the Fall, we have to remember that football is inclusive of more than the low risk players. There are coaches, referees, bus drivers, janitors, equipment people tied to programs and games that are at risk. There are probably ways to mitigate risk with this, but it should not be forgotten.

Also, schools like Macalater are already actively planning for a later Fall start, and others are planning for hybrid class models of on-site + virtual. If kids aren't on campus that will be a challenge. The DIII university president is wired differently when it comes to decision making vs. a DI President. The loss of revenue from a single semester of athletics is minimal, with the exception of 1 in 1,000 type events like UST vs. SJU.

[jamtod]

On the topic of playing in the Fall, we have to remember that football is inclusive of more than the low risk players. There are coaches, referees, bus drivers, janitors, equipment people tied to programs and games that are at risk. There are probably ways to mitigate risk with this, but it should not be forgotten.

Also, schools like Macalater are already actively planning for a later Fall start, and others are planning for hybrid class models of on-site + virtual. If kids aren't on campus that will be a challenge. The DIII university president is wired differently when it comes to decision making vs. a DI President. The loss of revenue from a single semester of athletics is minimal, with the exception of 1 in 1,000 type events like UST vs. SJU.

I think the bigger valid concern for a lot of D3 institutions is the revenue tied to enrollment. If a school has half of it's students competing in sports (as is the case at some small D3 schools) and they aren't able to compete, do they stay there or go elsewhere? Enrollment is already an issue and going to be stressed further by COVID, so this just adds to the problem.

[Tesomas]

On the topic of playing in the Fall, we have to remember that football is inclusive of more than the low risk players. There are coaches, referees, bus drivers, janitors, equipment people tied to programs and games that are at risk. There are probably ways to mitigate risk with this, but it should not be forgotten.

Also, schools like Macalater are already actively planning for a later Fall start, and others are planning for hybrid class models of on-site + virtual. If kids aren't on campus that will be a challenge. The DIII university president is wired differently when it comes to decision making vs. a DI President. The loss of revenue from a single semester of athletics is minimal, with the exception of 1 in 1,000 type events like UST vs. SJU.

I think the bigger valid concern for a lot of D3 institutions is the revenue tied to enrollment. If a school has half of it's students competing in sports (as is the case at some small D3 schools) and they aren't able to compete, do they stay there or go elsewhere? Enrollment is already an issue and going to be stressed further by COVID, so this just adds to the problem.

I wonder if we'll see a decent number of students take a gap year, either because they are incoming students who don't want to start college remotely, or because they are athletes who don't want to pay for an extra semester/full year of school to play for all four years of eligibility

[jknezek]

On the topic of playing in the Fall, we have to remember that football is inclusive of more than the low risk players. There are coaches, referees, bus drivers, janitors, equipment people tied to programs and games that are at risk. There are probably ways to mitigate risk with this, but it should not be forgotten.

Also, schools like Macalater are already actively planning for a later Fall start, and others are planning for hybrid class models of on-site + virtual. If kids aren't on campus that will be a challenge. The DIII university president is wired differently when it comes to decision making vs. a DI President. The loss of revenue from a single semester of athletics is minimal, with the exception of 1 in 1,000 type events like UST vs. SJU.

I think the bigger valid concern for a lot of D3 institutions is the revenue tied to enrollment. If a school has half of it's students competing in sports (as is the case at some small D3 schools) and they aren't able to compete, do they stay there or go elsewhere? Enrollment is already an issue and going to be stressed further by COVID, so this just adds to the problem.

And this ties in to the larger problem of having too many college graduates and the devaluing of college degrees. If you are in school because you want to continue playing competitive sports, then maybe a college degree wasn't for you in the first place. We have so many colleges, so many degrees, so much of it useless. To manage a Starbucks you need a college degree. To be an admin assistant you need a college degree. To be a cop, they want a college degree in lots of places. This never used to be true, but we have so many college degrees floating around we can now demand them in spots where they are not needed. So parents feel even more pressure to pay for college to get a degree for a job that shouldn't need one and doesn't pay enough to cover the expenses.

Honestly? The great whittling down of colleges in this country is long overdue. And the fact that we can talk with a straight face about the only reason kids are in college is to continue playing sports and they might not return without that option is a fair indicator that something has gone horribly wrong. If you are a college relying on those types of students, perhaps your business model is well past it's due date.

[jamtod]

On the topic of playing in the Fall, we have to remember that football is inclusive of more than the low risk players. There are coaches, referees, bus drivers, janitors, equipment people tied to programs and games that are at risk. There are probably ways to mitigate risk with this, but it should not be forgotten.

Also, schools like Macalater are already actively planning for a later Fall start, and others are planning for hybrid class models of on-site + virtual. If kids aren't on campus that will be a challenge. The DIII university president is wired differently when it comes to decision making vs. a DI President. The loss of revenue from a single semester of athletics is minimal, with the exception of 1 in 1,000 type events like UST vs. SJU.

I think the bigger valid concern for a lot of D3 institutions is the revenue tied to enrollment. If a school has half of it's students competing in sports (as is the case at some small D3 schools) and they aren't able to compete, do they stay there or go elsewhere? Enrollment is already an issue and going to be stressed further by COVID, so this just adds to the problem.

And this ties in to the larger problem of having too many college graduates and the devaluing of college degrees. If you are in school because you want to continue playing competitive sports, then maybe a college degree wasn't for you in the first place. We have so many colleges, so many degrees, so much of it useless. To manage a Starbucks you need a college degree. To be an admin assistant you need a college degree. To be a cop, they want a college degree in lots of places. This never used to be true, but we have so many college degrees floating around we can now demand them in spots where they are not needed. So parents feel even more pressure to pay for college to get a degree for a job that shouldn't need one and doesn't pay enough to cover the expenses.

Honestly? The great whittling down of colleges in this country is long overdue. And the fact that we can talk with a straight face about the only reason kids are in college is to continue playing sports and they might not return without that option is a fair indicator that something has gone horribly wrong. If you are a college relying on those types of students, perhaps your business model is well past it's due date.

You are taking this a step (a valid one, likely) further than I intended.
My comment was based on the assumption that the dude playing football at St Olaf went to that school because he was recruited there (and had the academic profile to get in) when maybe the U of MN or some other larger school would be a better fit for him, if football wasn't involved.

[formerd3db]

On the topic of playing in the Fall, we have to remember that football is inclusive of more than the low risk players. There are coaches, referees, bus drivers, janitors, equipment people tied to programs and games that are at risk. There are probably ways to mitigate risk with this, but it should not be forgotten.

Also, schools like Macalater are already actively planning for a later Fall start, and others are planning for hybrid class models of on-site + virtual. If kids aren't on campus that will be a challenge. The DIII university president is wired differently when it comes to decision making vs. a DI President. The loss of revenue from a single semester of athletics is minimal, with the exception of 1 in 1,000 type events like UST vs. SJU.

I think the bigger valid concern for a lot of D3 institutions is the revenue tied to enrollment. If a school has half of it's students competing in sports (as is the case at some small D3 schools) and they aren't able to compete, do they stay there or go elsewhere? Enrollment is already an issue and going to be stressed further by COVID, so this just adds to the problem.

And this ties in to the larger problem of having too many college graduates and the devaluing of college degrees. If you are in school because you want to continue playing competitive sports, then maybe a college degree wasn't for you in the first place. We have so many colleges, so many degrees, so much of it useless. To manage a Starbucks you need a college degree. To be an admin assistant you need a college degree. To be a cop, they want a college degree in lots of places. This never used to be true, but we have so many college degrees floating around we can now demand them in spots where they are not needed. So parents feel even more pressure to pay for college to get a degree for a job that shouldn't need one and doesn't pay enough to cover the expenses.

Honestly? The great whittling down of colleges in this country is long overdue. And the fact that we can talk with a straight face about the only reason kids are in college is to continue playing sports and they might not return without that option is a fair indicator that something has gone horribly wrong. If you are a college relying on those types of students, perhaps your business model is well past it's due date.

What you say is true and I agree with you.  Yet, there is the other side of that situation. What about those (of us) who went to college for both-the degree and to continue our football careers?  While in reality, football is not the most important aspect in our lives, it still IS important in many ways (you all know what I am talking about).  And in that regard, not having any football will certainly be a loss for many.  There will, however, still be colleges/universities remaining with football so opportunities will exist for those who really want to go that combined purpose route.

[OzJohnnie]

On the topic of playing in the Fall, we have to remember that football is inclusive of more than the low risk players. There are coaches, referees, bus drivers, janitors, equipment people tied to programs and games that are at risk. There are probably ways to mitigate risk with this, but it should not be forgotten.

Also, schools like Macalater are already actively planning for a later Fall start, and others are planning for hybrid class models of on-site + virtual. If kids aren't on campus that will be a challenge. The DIII university president is wired differently when it comes to decision making vs. a DI President. The loss of revenue from a single semester of athletics is minimal, with the exception of 1 in 1,000 type events like UST vs. SJU.

Is it harsh for me to suggest that high risk people avoid high risk activities?  Get new bus drivers?  Aged coaches retire or change roles?  Surely you can't cancel a whole season because the bus driver is 55 and has diabetes.

[jknezek]

What you say is true and I agree with you.  Yet, there is the other side of that situation. What about those (of us) who went to college for both-the degree and to continue our football careers?  While in reality, football is not the most important aspect in our lives, it still IS important in many ways (you all know what I am talking about).  And in that regard, not having any football will certainly be a loss for many.  There will, however, still be colleges/universities remaining with football so opportunities will exist for those who really want to go that combined purpose route.

You are taking this a step (a valid one, likely) further than I intended.
My comment was based on the assumption that the dude playing football at St Olaf went to that school because he was recruited there (and had the academic profile to get in) when maybe the U of MN or some other larger school would be a better fit for him, if football wasn't involved.

Both are valid points. And yes, my example goes one step beyond and wouldn't really apply to St. Olaf or any of the schools that require more than an ability to fog a mirror while having a parent write a check to get in. I think, however, in a lot of marginal colleges there are a lot of kids who come to play sports while their parents hope they get a degree. There is no upside in naming names, though I think we could all come up with more than a few.

I think our higher ed system right now is unhealthy, but I am also always sad to hear of colleges closing. So I kind of swing around this issue between what I think is necessary and how unfortunately tragic it is for the students, professors, campus workers, and alumni...

[jknezek]

On the topic of playing in the Fall, we have to remember that football is inclusive of more than the low risk players. There are coaches, referees, bus drivers, janitors, equipment people tied to programs and games that are at risk. There are probably ways to mitigate risk with this, but it should not be forgotten.

Also, schools like Macalater are already actively planning for a later Fall start, and others are planning for hybrid class models of on-site + virtual. If kids aren't on campus that will be a challenge. The DIII university president is wired differently when it comes to decision making vs. a DI President. The loss of revenue from a single semester of athletics is minimal, with the exception of 1 in 1,000 type events like UST vs. SJU.

Is it harsh for me to suggest that high risk people avoid high risk activities?  Get new bus drivers?  Aged coaches retire or change roles?  Surely you can't cancel a whole season because the bus driver is 55 and has diabetes.

If Coach Gagliardi was still coaching would you be so quick to tell him to get off the football field so the team could start playing? I'd like to see how that would have gone down.

[miac952]

On the topic of playing in the Fall, we have to remember that football is inclusive of more than the low risk players. There are coaches, referees, bus drivers, janitors, equipment people tied to programs and games that are at risk. There are probably ways to mitigate risk with this, but it should not be forgotten.

Also, schools like Macalater are already actively planning for a later Fall start, and others are planning for hybrid class models of on-site + virtual. If kids aren't on campus that will be a challenge. The DIII university president is wired differently when it comes to decision making vs. a DI President. The loss of revenue from a single semester of athletics is minimal, with the exception of 1 in 1,000 type events like UST vs. SJU.

I think the bigger valid concern for a lot of D3 institutions is the revenue tied to enrollment. If a school has half of it's students competing in sports (as is the case at some small D3 schools) and they aren't able to compete, do they stay there or go elsewhere? Enrollment is already an issue and going to be stressed further by COVID, so this just adds to the problem.

I wonder if we'll see a decent number of students take a gap year, either because they are incoming students who don't want to start college remotely, or because they are athletes who don't want to pay for an extra semester/full year of school to play for all four years of eligibility

A couple kids referenced as much in the strib article over the weekend. Some considering traveling, others internships. They noted they wanted the full college experience if they were going to pay that much money.

[jamtod]

On the topic of playing in the Fall, we have to remember that football is inclusive of more than the low risk players. There are coaches, referees, bus drivers, janitors, equipment people tied to programs and games that are at risk. There are probably ways to mitigate risk with this, but it should not be forgotten.

Also, schools like Macalater are already actively planning for a later Fall start, and others are planning for hybrid class models of on-site + virtual. If kids aren't on campus that will be a challenge. The DIII university president is wired differently when it comes to decision making vs. a DI President. The loss of revenue from a single semester of athletics is minimal, with the exception of 1 in 1,000 type events like UST vs. SJU.

Is it harsh for me to suggest that high risk people avoid high risk activities?  Get new bus drivers?  Aged coaches retire or change roles?  Surely you can't cancel a whole season because the bus driver is 55 and has diabetes.

Yes.

[OzJohnnie]

On the topic of playing in the Fall, we have to remember that football is inclusive of more than the low risk players. There are coaches, referees, bus drivers, janitors, equipment people tied to programs and games that are at risk. There are probably ways to mitigate risk with this, but it should not be forgotten.

Also, schools like Macalater are already actively planning for a later Fall start, and others are planning for hybrid class models of on-site + virtual. If kids aren't on campus that will be a challenge. The DIII university president is wired differently when it comes to decision making vs. a DI President. The loss of revenue from a single semester of athletics is minimal, with the exception of 1 in 1,000 type events like UST vs. SJU.

Is it harsh for me to suggest that high risk people avoid high risk activities?  Get new bus drivers?  Aged coaches retire or change roles?  Surely you can't cancel a whole season because the bus driver is 55 and has diabetes.

If Coach Gagliardi was still coaching would you be so quick to tell him to get off the football field so the team could start playing? I'd like to see how that would have gone down.

That or cancel the program?  I doubt he would have waited to be asked.

[jamtod]

On the topic of playing in the Fall, we have to remember that football is inclusive of more than the low risk players. There are coaches, referees, bus drivers, janitors, equipment people tied to programs and games that are at risk. There are probably ways to mitigate risk with this, but it should not be forgotten.

Also, schools like Macalater are already actively planning for a later Fall start, and others are planning for hybrid class models of on-site + virtual. If kids aren't on campus that will be a challenge. The DIII university president is wired differently when it comes to decision making vs. a DI President. The loss of revenue from a single semester of athletics is minimal, with the exception of 1 in 1,000 type events like UST vs. SJU.

Is it harsh for me to suggest that high risk people avoid high risk activities?  Get new bus drivers?  Aged coaches retire or change roles?  Surely you can't cancel a whole season because the bus driver is 55 and has diabetes.

If Coach Gagliardi was still coaching would you be so quick to tell him to get off the football field so the team could start playing? I'd like to see how that would have gone down.

That or cancel the program?  I doubt he would have waited to be asked.

These are definitely the two options we face, no doubt.

[miac952]

On the topic of playing in the Fall, we have to remember that football is inclusive of more than the low risk players. There are coaches, referees, bus drivers, janitors, equipment people tied to programs and games that are at risk. There are probably ways to mitigate risk with this, but it should not be forgotten.

Also, schools like Macalater are already actively planning for a later Fall start, and others are planning for hybrid class models of on-site + virtual. If kids aren't on campus that will be a challenge. The DIII university president is wired differently when it comes to decision making vs. a DI President. The loss of revenue from a single semester of athletics is minimal, with the exception of 1 in 1,000 type events like UST vs. SJU.

Is it harsh for me to suggest that high risk people avoid high risk activities?  Get new bus drivers?  Aged coaches retire or change roles?  Surely you can't cancel a whole season because the bus driver is 55 and has diabetes.

I don't see it as harsh Oz. But, it becomes a logistical challenge. The bus driver example is a good one because in all of my college sports trips and now seeing them through the lens of a relative that coaches a college teams, I haven't seen a bus driver younger than 60  . Referees seem to skew older as well, and there is already a workforce shortage. There are potential workarounds to each roadblock of course. But, it is more complex than the players being low risk. I know of at least a couple MIAC coaches with immuno-suppressed family members. That's a challenge too.

I'm reasonably confident the NFL will find a way. Too much $ is on the line, and owners and players want that $. Maybe not in front of fans, but the TV contract is the primary concern here. I do wonder about college football though, particularly D2 and D3.

[OzJohnnie]

On the topic of playing in the Fall, we have to remember that football is inclusive of more than the low risk players. There are coaches, referees, bus drivers, janitors, equipment people tied to programs and games that are at risk. There are probably ways to mitigate risk with this, but it should not be forgotten.

Also, schools like Macalater are already actively planning for a later Fall start, and others are planning for hybrid class models of on-site + virtual. If kids aren't on campus that will be a challenge. The DIII university president is wired differently when it comes to decision making vs. a DI President. The loss of revenue from a single semester of athletics is minimal, with the exception of 1 in 1,000 type events like UST vs. SJU.

Is it harsh for me to suggest that high risk people avoid high risk activities?  Get new bus drivers?  Aged coaches retire or change roles?  Surely you can't cancel a whole season because the bus driver is 55 and has diabetes.

Yes.

So, less harsh to suspend the whole program and all the jobs and all the students?  How's that?

I'm really struggling with the calculus at work here.  Where else do we make risk judgements that the low at risk must accept the same conditions as the high at risk?  We accept that the young pay more for car insurance because they are risky drivers.  That adrenaline junkies pay more for life insurance if they can even get it.  The whole insurance industry and human existence is based on graduated and differing degrees of accepted risk.  Why is this now different?  A genuine question.