Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Jon Wilner: Did Pac-12 panic and make wrong decision?
DerekJohnson
Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 69,745 
Wrong Call On Football?
Two weeks ago today, the Pac-12 shuttered football for the first time in conference history.
Not much has changed over the fortnight:
The SEC, ACC and Big 12 continue churning forward despite positive tests, practice pauses and campus policy reversals.
At the same time, so much has changed:
The Covid-19 positivity rate is dropping in Arizona; the case counts are plunging in Washington; and the outbreak is receding in California.
Local conditions no longer seem quite so daunting across the Pac-12 footprint.
So we wonder: Did the presidents move too soon?
Absolutely not, and quite possibly yes.
Sorry for the waffling. But with college football as with so many coronavirus matters, the answer is steeped in complexity and nuance.
Earlier this summer, the Hotline outlined the smooth manner in which the Pac-12 conducted business during the pandemic.
Earlier this month, we summarized the reasoning behind the decision to shut down the fall sports season.
And for these past two weeks, we have pondered the timing of the plug pulling.
Our conclusion:
The decision made perfect sense based on all available information at the time of the vote, which came one week before the start of training camp.
In fact, the vote was taken at that time, Aug. 11, precisely because of training camp: The conference needed the medical experts to approve testing and tracing protocols for the start of contact practice.
Instead, they delivered a 12-page report explaining why that was ill-advised.
Our measured critique of the process targets the broader framework:
The decision that led to the regular-season calendar, which set the training camp schedule that required the medical report that convinced the presidents to shut it down when they did.
Why attempt a 10-game season, starting in late September?
That decision seemed aggressive at the time (July 31) based on the Covid-19 conditions across the west and the testing limitations across the country.
As the days passed and training camp drew closer, aggressive became unreasonable.
Had the conference instead crafted a more modest schedule — for example: eight or nine games, starting in the middle of October — then everything would have changed.
It could have started training camp in the middle of September, not the middle of August, which would have given the medical advisors three or four additional weeks to monitor.
Their skepticism that local conditions and testing limitations would remain unchanged into September played a key role in the recommendation and the vote.
But what if they had waited until after Labor Day to take stock of local conditions and testing technology?
What if they had taken another month to gather information on Myocarditis?
Instead of starting at Mile 1 and seeing no realistic path to the marathon’s finish, what if they had started at Mile 13?
Might the end-game have looked different?
Probably not.
But probably isn't the bar -- at least, it shouldn't be the bar.
For its athletes and fans, the conference should have done everything possible to buy as much time as possible.
It should have avoided a vote until it absolutely, positively had to take a vote.
Based on the regular-season and training camp schedules that were announced at the end of July, the vote was, in fact, wholly necessary at the time it took place.
But did the conference box itself in with the calendar?
Would the outlook be any different now, today, at this moment, if the teams were still three weeks from starting training camp?
We can't rule that out.
If you’re going to second guess the decision, that’s not an unfair place to start. — Jon Wilner.
Two weeks ago today, the Pac-12 shuttered football for the first time in conference history.
Not much has changed over the fortnight:
The SEC, ACC and Big 12 continue churning forward despite positive tests, practice pauses and campus policy reversals.
At the same time, so much has changed:
The Covid-19 positivity rate is dropping in Arizona; the case counts are plunging in Washington; and the outbreak is receding in California.
Local conditions no longer seem quite so daunting across the Pac-12 footprint.
So we wonder: Did the presidents move too soon?
Absolutely not, and quite possibly yes.
Sorry for the waffling. But with college football as with so many coronavirus matters, the answer is steeped in complexity and nuance.
Earlier this summer, the Hotline outlined the smooth manner in which the Pac-12 conducted business during the pandemic.
Earlier this month, we summarized the reasoning behind the decision to shut down the fall sports season.
And for these past two weeks, we have pondered the timing of the plug pulling.
Our conclusion:
The decision made perfect sense based on all available information at the time of the vote, which came one week before the start of training camp.
In fact, the vote was taken at that time, Aug. 11, precisely because of training camp: The conference needed the medical experts to approve testing and tracing protocols for the start of contact practice.
Instead, they delivered a 12-page report explaining why that was ill-advised.
Our measured critique of the process targets the broader framework:
The decision that led to the regular-season calendar, which set the training camp schedule that required the medical report that convinced the presidents to shut it down when they did.
Why attempt a 10-game season, starting in late September?
That decision seemed aggressive at the time (July 31) based on the Covid-19 conditions across the west and the testing limitations across the country.
As the days passed and training camp drew closer, aggressive became unreasonable.
Had the conference instead crafted a more modest schedule — for example: eight or nine games, starting in the middle of October — then everything would have changed.
It could have started training camp in the middle of September, not the middle of August, which would have given the medical advisors three or four additional weeks to monitor.
Their skepticism that local conditions and testing limitations would remain unchanged into September played a key role in the recommendation and the vote.
But what if they had waited until after Labor Day to take stock of local conditions and testing technology?
What if they had taken another month to gather information on Myocarditis?
Instead of starting at Mile 1 and seeing no realistic path to the marathon’s finish, what if they had started at Mile 13?
Might the end-game have looked different?
Probably not.
But probably isn't the bar -- at least, it shouldn't be the bar.
For its athletes and fans, the conference should have done everything possible to buy as much time as possible.
It should have avoided a vote until it absolutely, positively had to take a vote.
Based on the regular-season and training camp schedules that were announced at the end of July, the vote was, in fact, wholly necessary at the time it took place.
But did the conference box itself in with the calendar?
Would the outlook be any different now, today, at this moment, if the teams were still three weeks from starting training camp?
We can't rule that out.
If you’re going to second guess the decision, that’s not an unfair place to start. — Jon Wilner.
Comments
-
I can't help but think the conference made a huge mistake.
-
They did, but not for the reasons Wilner try’s to rationalize.
-
Wilner is perfect for the Pac-12. A loser covering a loser conference.
-
I mean on one hand they made a massive mistake that will have lasting disastrous consequences for member programs on the other hand there was never any chance the Pac12 was playing in 2020 (and they won't in spring 2021 either) so they simply did the inevitable.huskyhooligan said:I can't help but think the conference made a huge mistake.
I'm much less outraged by the decision itself than the fact the idiots who are entrusted to make these decisions are still making decisions. -
There was never a reward for being first even if the worst had happened. The B1G and PAC 12 overreached and it may create consequences for the next 4-5 years. I strongly believe this is the final blow that will lead to the dissolution of the PAC 12 conference.
-
I am thinking the same. After a year of no football, how does Wazzu, who is already 90 mil in debt, continue having enough sports programs to be a D-1 program. And I'm guessing OSU can't be that far behind. And I gotta think the Big 12 is putting the full court press on ASU and the So Cali schools. And if I'm SC, why the hell am I staying in this shit conference if the other 3 conferences are playing. And Cal and UW, sports are distasteful and rayciss and not necessary anyway.greenblood said:There was never a reward for being first even if the worst had happened. The B1G and PAC 12 overreached and it may create consequences for the next 4-5 years. I strongly believe this is the final blow that will lead to the dissolution of the PAC 12 conference.
-
Pacific Coast football has gone through numerous conferences and configurations. And it can again. The Pac 12 may need to be killed to save it. The question becomes do enough fans want college football. When UW won the league in 1963 there were 5 teams.
I agree that the Pac did what the Pac had to do. Not going to lie I am glad the Big Three are giving it a go -
No shit
-
Its not really that complex. People are losing jobs right and left. Quite common really. Most HR types have a list in their desk drawer of who gets laid off
