[jwplayer VjsfzEz0-XNcErKyb]
We’ve had almost a full week now to process the Big Ten’s decision to postpone — or as I like to say, ‘effectively cancel’ — the 2020 fall college football season. And grappling with it now isn’t any easier than it was on Tuesday.
By the time the decision matriculated down from the presidents, I was well-convinced that the Big Ten would punt this decision to down the road. I thought, perhaps it would still come to the same conclusion — that it couldn’t play — or even get a handful of games under its belt before the season was canceled, but clearly, the conference didn’t want to waste time.
The question that most inquiring minds have pondered is: why now? Why make this decision just six days after releasing a schedule full with contingencies and flexibility if problems were to arise?
And neither the conference, nor the presidents and chancellors of its member institutions, have provided any answers in the interim.
At least the Pac-12 released its medical findings, heavily reliant on the troubles that the newfound myocarditis issue has raised. One U-M cardiologist took issue with the study that the conferences were relying on, but also stated that he isn’t sure whether or not football can be played safely. Former Michigan DE Chris Hutchinson, father of Aidan and an ER doctor, states that it shouldn’t be a factor. However, multiple student-athletes from across college football, and coaches as well, made a convincing pitch that the game can be played with few mitigating factors. While I do think that their input should be valued, given that they’re the ones playing the game, we have no evidence that the Big Ten has weighed any of it. Why? Because we know very little about the organization’s thought process, beyond the rote ‘health and safety of student-athletes’ line. Why then, if that’s of paramount importance, are you potentially asking them to play two (likely shortened) seasons in a calendar year? Doesn’t that pose just as much of a risk to their health and safety?
[lawrence-related id=27270,27249,27232]
Likewise, though U-M president Dr. Mark Schlissel didn’t seem confident that in-person classes would be able to be sustained throughout the entirety of fall, why is it that the student populace, without as stringent of protocols or subject to the intense prowess of testing, is capable of gathering en masse, whereas the players cannot? Especially being that the football program has managed the situation quite well since returning to campus in mid-June.
I’m well aware that it goes beyond Michigan, given that other schools (ahem, Rutgers) have had their share of difficulty in managing this crisis. But still, what this says to me is that the leadership was ill-prepared to handle any of this, and chose what if felt to be the option of least resistance. Other conferences are trying to have football, and while it might just be an optics play before they eventually find themselves in the same boat, don’t they owe it to their athletics departments and student-athletes to at least kick the tire down the road before they come to that conclusion? Players from across the conference were pulled from their homes back to campus in June only to be told they can’t have what they came to their schools for. (And let’s drop the charade about the academics portion — yes, the degree is crucial, but college football is the aim for college football players.)
Listen, I have no problem with the decision in the sense that it might be the right one. We won’t have the benefit of knowing until hindsight. But we should at least know the reasoning and rationale why the Big Ten felt it couldn’t press on while other conferences do just that. The players across the conference, as well as their parents and coaches, clearly feel betrayed, as exemplified by the numerous pleas, letters, petitions and social media posts that have proliferated both with the situation on the brink as well as in the aftermath. Leadership equals accountability, not just making the tough choices. An equivocal, parental ‘because I said so’ does not inspire confidence in this decision. If you’re going to stand behind a tough call, then outline what went into making said tough call. Referees even have to do that, why can’t the leaders of these public institutions?
Until the Big Ten expounds on the minutiae, there will be unrest amongst its contingencies — and I do believe that’s warranted. Because making closed-door decisions without showing your work is bound to raise more questions than answer anything.
If you’re going to claim that you’re preparing student-athletes to be leaders and representatives of our communities, then it’s long time to start treating them as such, rather than acting as adults to toddlers and proclaiming you know better. Even if you end up being right in the end about taking the season away from those who toiled in preparation of, at the very, very least, they should be privy to why and how you came to the decision, and why now instead of seeing how effective or ineffective the protocols they’ve been asked to follow are.
And that’s not even to mention the fans, students and alumni, who have supported these programs both financially and through the course of time.
We all deserve better.