Hindsight, as we all know, is 20/20.

[CheyenneGunslinger]

But looking back on the 2020 football season as a whole, all schools included, should the whole season have been cancelled?

I've got mixed feeling but to me it's been nothing more than an exhibition season.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

I think that the decision to cancel was maybe the smart decision at the time, given the info available. HOWEVER, I also think that many people in leadership positions at the NCAA, MWC and institutions dropped the ball big time in preparing for the season. They had from March to August to plan, create protocols, create backup plans, etc. Instead, everyone sat around and waited for the problem to solve itself, which it obviously didn't.

Had everyone been better prepared, maybe they don't jump the gun and cancel in August and maybe we actually get the season started on time or slightly delayed. Instead, it finally started right when infections started ramping back up. Hell, Texas State just played their 11th game this year.

Most will consider this a lost season, but I feel for the players that this will be their last year. There are guys graduating that won't come back next year. There are guys that, when the season ends, will be told they no longer have a spot. I feel bad for those guys more than any of us fans.

 

[bladerunnr]

At the time, I didn't think the MWC made a decision on it's own. It simply reacted to what the Big 10 and Pac 12 did.

What's more interesting is what happens next year. From everything I've read, the vaccine or vaccines won't be available to the masses for several months. We may face the same decisions again. I think having huge numbers of fans in the stands won't happen in 2021. Teams may play to empty or mostly empty stadiums again. I don't know about the rest of you, but not being able to attend really diminishes my enthusiasm. Watching the teams play in empty stadiums is not the same either.

The prior poster mentioned what a lousy deal the players are getting (I'm paraphrasing). I agree. I also feel bad for the track and cross country runners who missed an entire season. Look at how many sports were completely cancelled last year and probably this year as well. Basketball looks like a half assed mess this year with no fans and teams playing each other twice in 3 days.

Is it better than not playing at all? I'm guessing the players want to play. But from this fan's perspective, I'm kind of meh about the whole thing.

 

[Wyokie]

Just my $0.02 here...I honestly think the ADS and school presidents wanted this season to stay cancelled however...one major problem....T.V. contracts and to make things worse, I think a few are up for renewal (Just a complete guess on my part). Now had both the ACC and SEC said O.K. we'll cancel the season as well, 2020 football wouldn't happen. Both of those conferences decided we're going to have a season come hell or high water plus they would get most of the T.V. viewers which means more $$$$$$ for them. The other conferences panicked about losing T.V. money to the "all-mighty" ACC and SEC and so...we all got the situation we have now. So if there's anyone or anything to blame in this completely messed up season, blame the T.V. money.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I worry about the scholarship load going forward and how manageable that will be. Based on the team's performance, 2020 season is not all bad. Yeah it doesn't mean much, but we were clearly going to have struggles this year. If you are going to have a down year, this is the year to do it. I'd be more pissed if we looked like a contender.

 

[CheyenneGunslinger]

At the time, I didn't think the MWC made a decision on it's own. It simply reacted to what the Big 10 and Pac 12 did.

What's more interesting is what happens next year. From everything I've read, the vaccine or vaccines won't be available to the masses for several months. We may face the same decisions again. I think having huge numbers of fans in the stands won't happen in 2021. Teams may play to empty or mostly empty stadiums again. I don't know about the rest of you, but not being able to attend really diminishes my enthusiasm. Watching the teams play in empty stadiums is not the same either.

The prior poster mentioned what a lousy deal the players are getting (I'm paraphrasing). I agree. I also feel bad for the track and cross country runners who missed an entire season. Look at how many sports were completely cancelled last year and probably this year as well. Basketball looks like a half assed mess this year with no fans and teams playing each other twice in 3 days.

Is it better than not playing at all? I'm guessing the players want to play. But from this fan's perspective, I'm kind of meh about the whole thing.

You are right about other college sports being completely or almost completely cancelled, e.g., college baseball which is huge in a large section of the country.

As stated above by a couple of posters the whole thing was not very well thought out by the leaders in college sports.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

2 states. 1 severe long-term lockdown approach (no school, no sports, etc.) and 1 with little or no mitigation efforts (including schools open, fans in attendance, etc.)

Daily cases per 100K = 89.7 vs 53.1
Infection Rate = 1.05 vs 0.97

Guess which is which? Yep. I'm not saying the virus is trivial or that we ignore the dangers of the virus. However, if you compare across states it seems that BASED ON DATA not emotion, mitigation strategies don't seem to be helping when comparing states with strict mitigation strategies versus those that have few mitigation strategies. You can point to a lot of reasons: people are stupid and won't follow suggestions; mitigation strategies are stupid and don't help; etc. IMO, the reason doesn't matter but the fact that mitigation strategies don't work is important and brings to question whether they should be used at the detriment of kids, schools, sports, economies, etc.

AGAIN I'M NOT TRIVIALIZING THE DANGERS OR SIGNIFICANCE OF THE VIRUS. LET'S PLEASE DON'T DEVOLVE INTO THAT AGAIN.

 

[Bryoming]

2 states. 1 severe long-term lockdown approach (no school, no sports, etc.) and 1 with little or no mitigation efforts (including schools open, fans in attendance, etc.)

Daily cases per 100K = 89.7 vs 53.1
Infection Rate = 1.05 vs 0.97

Guess which is which? Yep. I'm not saying the virus is trivial or that we ignore the dangers of the virus. However, if you compare across states it seems that BASED ON DATA not emotion, mitigation strategies don't seem to be helping when comparing states with strict mitigation strategies versus those that have few mitigation strategies. You can point to a lot of reasons: people are stupid and won't follow suggestions; mitigation strategies are stupid and don't help; etc. IMO, the reason doesn't matter but the fact that mitigation strategies don't work is important and brings to question whether they should be used at the detriment of kids, schools, sports, economies, etc.

AGAIN I'M NOT TRIVIALIZING THE DANGERS OR SIGNIFICANCE OF THE VIRUS. LET'S PLEASE DON'T DEVOLVE INTO THAT AGAIN.

The problem with interpreting data this way is that you're cherry picking results to prove how right your opinion is. Allow me to do the same to prove how wrong it is.

2 states. 1 long-term lockdown approach (no school, no sports, etc.) and 1 with little or no mitigation efforts (including schools open, fans in attendance, etc.)

Total cases per 100K = 3,066 vs. 9,120
Total deaths per 100K = 48 vs. 107

I however, will not make you guess which is which. California and South Dakota are the states I cherry picked data from.

The fact of the matter is that this has been politicized so much that a large part of the population is either in total denial or total panic mode. There is no silver bullet to make this go away. Listen to science and keep yourself safe.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

2 states. 1 severe long-term lockdown approach (no school, no sports, etc.) and 1 with little or no mitigation efforts (including schools open, fans in attendance, etc.)

Daily cases per 100K = 89.7 vs 53.1
Infection Rate = 1.05 vs 0.97

Guess which is which? Yep. I'm not saying the virus is trivial or that we ignore the dangers of the virus. However, if you compare across states it seems that BASED ON DATA not emotion, mitigation strategies don't seem to be helping when comparing states with strict mitigation strategies versus those that have few mitigation strategies. You can point to a lot of reasons: people are stupid and won't follow suggestions; mitigation strategies are stupid and don't help; etc. IMO, the reason doesn't matter but the fact that mitigation strategies don't work is important and brings to question whether they should be used at the detriment of kids, schools, sports, economies, etc.

AGAIN I'M NOT TRIVIALIZING THE DANGERS OR SIGNIFICANCE OF THE VIRUS. LET'S PLEASE DON'T DEVOLVE INTO THAT AGAIN.

The problem with interpreting data this way is that you're cherry picking results to prove how right your opinion is. Allow me to do the same to prove how wrong it is.

2 states. 1 long-term lockdown approach (no school, no sports, etc.) and 1 with little or no mitigation efforts (including schools open, fans in attendance, etc.)

Total cases per 100K = 3,066 vs. 9,120
Total deaths per 100K = 48 vs. 107

I however, will not make you guess which is which. California and South Dakota are the states I cherry picked data from.

The fact of the matter is that this has been politicized so much that a large part of the population is either in total denial or total panic mode. There is no silver bullet to make this go away. Listen to science and keep yourself safe.

Sticking strictly to science, you illustrate the point perfectly. Science relies on statistical significance. The variability described in our posts points to substantial error which prevents detection of statistical significance. In other words, it is inconclusive at best as to whether extreme mitigation efforts do or do not work.

 

[Lost Poke]

Sticking strictly to science, you illustrate the point perfectly. Science relies on statistical significance. The variability described in our posts points to substantial error which prevents detection of statistical significance. In other words, it is inconclusive at best as to whether extreme mitigation efforts do or do not work.

That's fun stats and all. Do you suggest, because it's difficult to prove one side or the other, that we do nothing?

 

['PokeForLife]

2 states. 1 severe long-term lockdown approach (no school, no sports, etc.) and 1 with little or no mitigation efforts (including schools open, fans in attendance, etc.)

Daily cases per 100K = 89.7 vs 53.1
Infection Rate = 1.05 vs 0.97

Guess which is which? Yep. I'm not saying the virus is trivial or that we ignore the dangers of the virus. However, if you compare across states it seems that BASED ON DATA not emotion, mitigation strategies don't seem to be helping when comparing states with strict mitigation strategies versus those that have few mitigation strategies. You can point to a lot of reasons: people are stupid and won't follow suggestions; mitigation strategies are stupid and don't help; etc. IMO, the reason doesn't matter but the fact that mitigation strategies don't work is important and brings to question whether they should be used at the detriment of kids, schools, sports, economies, etc.

AGAIN I'M NOT TRIVIALIZING THE DANGERS OR SIGNIFICANCE OF THE VIRUS. LET'S PLEASE DON'T DEVOLVE INTO THAT AGAIN.

The problem with interpreting data this way is that you're cherry picking results to prove how right your opinion is. Allow me to do the same to prove how wrong it is.

2 states. 1 long-term lockdown approach (no school, no sports, etc.) and 1 with little or no mitigation efforts (including schools open, fans in attendance, etc.)

Total cases per 100K = 3,066 vs. 9,120
Total deaths per 100K = 48 vs. 107

I however, will not make you guess which is which. California and South Dakota are the states I cherry picked data from.

The fact of the matter is that this has been politicized so much that a large part of the population is either in total denial or total panic mode. There is no silver bullet to make this go away. Listen to science and keep yourself safe.

Sticking strictly to science, you illustrate the point perfectly. Science relies on statistical significance. The variability described in our posts points to substantial error which prevents detection of statistical significance. In other words, it is inconclusive at best as to whether extreme mitigation efforts do or do not work.

Yeah I've been talking with my family about the data quite a bit of late. There are so so so many variables in this whole equation that we just cannot control for. Why do we see so much variation state to state? Because no state is totally alike. Way too many variables and most of them we don't even know about. I'm looking at every study that comes out with a dose of skepticism now because of the lack of controlling.

Now, not only do I think that the studies are complicated by all the variables, but I think the mitigation efforts are as well. It is impossible to control all the variables short of pulling what China has done by literally locking its own people in their own houses. Seems like the virus is gonna do what its gonna do despite many states' best efforts.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Sticking strictly to science, you illustrate the point perfectly. Science relies on statistical significance. The variability described in our posts points to substantial error which prevents detection of statistical significance. In other words, it is inconclusive at best as to whether extreme mitigation efforts do or do not work.

That's fun stats and all. Do you suggest, because it's difficult to prove one side or the other, that we do nothing?

Mitigation efforts in theory should work but as pointed in a few of the posts, there are too many variables. It is also worth pointing out the changing health recommendations from quarantine time to schools opening/remaining open (which even Fauci now recommends). It is clear some states, heavy-handed mitigation efforts were mostly futile and delayed the inevitable. Other states perhaps it could be argued that they marginally helped. In some cases, the mitigation efforts are nothing short of baffling. For example, where I live, data indicated that big box stores were a significant source of spread yet the mitigation efforts closed almost everything except big box stores.

In short, I personally think that people should not be stupid, should wash their hands, should distance as much as possible, should limit their contact to a reasonable level, and wear masks that meet certain criteria (i.e. the global mask recommendation with no criteria on type of mask is stupid). However, I don't think people will do those things AND I don't think the heavy-handed mitigation laws will force people to not be stupid.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Seems like the virus is gonna do what its gonna do despite many states' best efforts.

That's where I'm at too.