Jump to content

No Fall Football


Panther89

Recommended Posts

On 6/16/2020 at 10:27 PM, Eagleborn said:

Yea. Double checked it after I considered the source. Never went back to change. 

Well, I saw it on Twitter too earlier yesterday afternoon and to dig a little.  Made me nervous when I saw it, but glad it was false info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand UIL is different from NCAA, but the NCAA just approved a plan/model for summer football activities. It puts the college season on track to start on time. Here's the snippet from what the NCAA approved...

Yesterday, the Council approved a measure to let schools conduct up to eight hours of weight training, conditioning and film review per week (with not more than two hours of film review per week) from July 13-23. Then, from July 24 through August 6, schools may conduct up to 20 hours of countable athletically related activities per week (not more than four hours per day) as follows:

  • Up to eight hours per week for weight training and conditioning.
  • Up to six hours per week for walk-throughs, which may include the use of a football.
  • Up to six hours per week for meetings, which may include film review, team meetings, position meetings, one-on-one meetings, etc.
  • During these 14 days, student-athletes are required to get at least two days off.

As of now, the format for preseason practice, which is set to being on August 7, has not changed. Teams traditionally have an acclimatization period and 25 on-field practices before their first game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Eagleborn said:

That’s been trend last few years and I’m afraid it will get worse. 

True, but this is really a killer. News coverage is a total loss-leader and a sunk cost. The tenuous model newspapers have been clinging to is that local sports can be the bell-cow due to exclusivity. Sure, you might be able to get Cowboys and Rangers highlights/stats from TV, but your hometown team only gets *real* coverage from the local paper. Putting all the games on YouTube renders day-after print coverage pretty much pointless. Granted, there's still an opportunity for reporters to do analysis and previews during the week, but this is a hammer-blow to the big Saturday/Sunday papers. 

I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know...   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LOL said:

True, but this is really a killer. News coverage is a total loss-leader and a sunk cost. The tenuous model newspapers have been clinging to is that local sports can be the bell-cow due to exclusivity. Sure, you might be able to get Cowboys and Rangers highlights/stats from TV, but your hometown team only gets *real* coverage from the local paper. Putting all the games on YouTube renders day-after print coverage pretty much pointless. Granted, there's still an opportunity for reporters to do analysis and previews during the week, but this is a hammer-blow to the big Saturday/Sunday papers. 

I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know...   

That’s true... but a real football fan would want a recap of as many games as possible. Or that’s the way I see it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Eagleborn said:

That’s true... but a real football fan would want a recap of as many games as possible. Or that’s the way I see it. 

Oh, no doubt! I'm a total geek for stats, records, tendencies, and what-have-you. I also like deeper dives into the players, coaches, and historical context. I'll take it all. 

But we're the exception not the rule. Most fans are pretty casual, even in overzealous Lobo Nation. You give them a live YouTube video of the game and some Tweets with historical data, they're gonna be fat and happy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Aledo said:

I'd imagine Aledo would have students run the cameras and maybe the 92.1 Hank FM radio guys do the broadcast. But who knows. I'm sure some schools won't want to deal with the hassle. I'd charge $7 per game to view. Cheaper than a ticket but enough to still make money. 

I'd go with an even $5.  The hardest part will be having a clean stream through a payable website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Aledo said:

Im sure the schools that want to can figure it out. I hope they do. Football is a big revenue source. 

I am going to pitch it to my AD when i get back from NM...  If I had to teach something other than Sports Medicine it would be something like video production

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was posted in the locked "WFAA reports Dallas ISD shuts down football" thread.

Pretty interesting perspective and very accurate from what I am hearing. Shutting down schools and going the virtual learning route may have a greater negative impact on the future than the virus. 

 

posted by d0tc0m

"I work in administration at a school outside of Springfield, MO — would be a 4A Div. II school for context — and we are having on-going, ever-changing conversations and planning meetings on the coming fall. There is a massive pushback and hesitancy to go full online virtual learning, with no seated classes and no students on campus whatsoever. There's also the fear a full-blown normality either won't happen at all come August, or won't be sustainable through December. So currently, and this is specifically where I'm involved, we are building out plans and models for blended learning K-12, while gathering and processing data from families on the practical implications of doing something like that. What we're finding is most families in our community, and in Springfield, are going to struggle, logistically, from either a blended or totally virtual learning environment. It will possibly have a severe and lasting impact on a majority of families, not to mention questionable long-term effects on our students' education. The feedback we're receiving is that those particular risks far outweigh the risk of COVID-19.

I say all that to provide a small glimpse into the conversations being had at districts across the country. It's not a simple black-and-white issue, honestly. There are so many shades of grey in this, and so many long-term effects that extend past the health and well-being of the population. So yes, we can listen to the CDC and Health Officials say this is the world you can expect if you DON'T do A, B, and C. But we have a whole other sect of the population that's saying, Yes, but here's what you can expect if we DO abide A, B, and C. Both sides warrant discussion and critical analysis."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eagleborn said:

Haven’t looked at numbers but I’d assume numbers up there are different than numbers down here. People up there probably act right too. 

Numbers are definitely different, but that’s to be expected. Missouri population is just over 6 million, so about 1/5th of Texas. We’ve got <20k confirmed cases, or about 1/3 of 1% of the population. Texas I think has 170k-ish cases, which is still less than 1/2 of 1% of the lone star population.

The actual numbers aren’t really relevant to the particular point of my conversation, though. It goes without saying that Texas, with 5x the Missouri population and more big-city hubs, is going to have more issues in dealing with COVID-19. The actual point of my comment was to highlight the conversations being had by district administrators ALL OVER the country, and the implications of the decisions that are being made, and the community conversations being had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...