Tag: Opinion

I can’t get this plot hole from ‘Avengers: Infinity War’ out of my mind

I can’t stop thinking about these 2 moments in “Infinity War.”

There’s a moment in Avengers: Infinity War that I can’t shake. After watching the movie more times than I should have, I’ve found something that is really not sitting well with me.

WARNING: I’m about to dive deeply into the plots of multiple Avengers movies. If you don’t want to see spoilers, stop reading now.

The Avengers are on the verge of war with Thanos, who is headed to earth with a massive, Apocalypse-inducing army to complete his collection of the Infinity Stones. Thanos was ready to flatten the earth for that stone. One of those stones, the Mind stone, is in Vision’s head, partially fueling his consciousness.

Yank out the stone: he’s dead. But there’s an experimental procedure — that only Shurri, the Black Panther’s sister, can perform — that could separate Vision and the stone safely.

So rather than destroying the stone — sacrificing Vision’s life — the Avengers elect to keep it intact, with hopes of sparing Vision. The result? Well, they lose and it’s a halfpocalypse.

That decision — to try to save Vision — guides the plot of the last two Avengers movies (Infinity War and Endgame). And it doesn’t make any sense. In fact, it doesn’t feel like the Avengers are actually giving it much thought. It’s a moment that happens so fast that you probably didn’t notice it. I’m pretty sure Marvel wanted it to happen that way.

“Eliminating the stone is the only way to be certain that Thanos can’t get it,” Vision says.

“That’s too high a price,” Wanda says.

“Only you have the power to pay it,” Vision says. “Thanos threatens the universe. One life should not stand in the way of defeating him.”

“But it should. We don’t trade lives, Vision,” Captain America says.

Timeout!

Vision is synthezoid made from vibranium. HE’S A ROBOT. MADE OF METAL! Let’s just keep things in perspective. (Sorry, Wanda. You’re in love with a highly complicated piece of technology.)

But back to Captain America’s flawed argument. He’s not thinking rationally, so Vision calls him out for sideways thinking.

“Captain, 70 years ago, you laid down your life to save how many millions of people. Tell me, why is this any different?” Vision asks.

“Because you might have a choice,” Banner interrupts. “I’m saying if we take out the stone, there’s still a lot of Vision left. Maybe the best parts.”

Banner diverts the conversation and convinces everyone (dumbly) to be patient and see if they can separate Vision from the stone. Never mind that Banner was just telling everyone how urgently they needed prepare for Thanos arrival — which, by the way, should obviously include the destruction of the stone. One second, he’s instilling the urgency of honoring Thanos’ threat. The next, Banner is like: Let’s slow this down for a second and really think about jeopardizing humanity for this robot.

It’s one thing that they made a terrible decision under pressure, but that decision gets more problematic when the logic they applied to justify it comes undone quickly.

When Thanos’ army shows up to destroy anything in its way of the stone, they still decide to keep the stone — and Vision — intact.

In a final meeting of the Avengers before the battle in Wakanda, Vision makes the case for it. He pleads with them. This time, the Avengers dismiss him even faster than last time. There is no explanation of why they don’t sacrifice him for the greater good of humanity. They just whisk in to attack mode — doing exactly what they said they wouldn’t: trade lives. Because on one hand, they’re under siege. Destroying the stone may not stop that siege. On the other hand, they’re definitely jeopardizing additional human lives by not destroying the stone — whether we’re talking about Wakanda lives, defending Vision, or of the human lives at stake in Thanos’ mad quest. It’s obviously complicated and nuanced and hypothetical

Problem is…

THEY DON’T TALK ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEIR DECISION DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE!!!!!

Woof. Alright, I’ll take it easy. It’s a comic book movie.

I understand the two main hiccups with destroying the soul stone: 1) Wanda has to destroy Vision and she loves him. So it would be hard to actually get her to do it. (I’ll suspend disbelief that she is actually the only person or thing capable of destroying the stones.) 2) If they did destroy the stone, Thanos might wipe out the planet anyway, perhaps in anger. And there’s no saying if Thanos, with the Time Stone, could have somehow brought the Mind Stone back into existence.

Even conceding all that, the Avengers should have at least discussed destroying the stone — and they definitely should’ve sacrificed Vision. Because by their own logic, it actually makes sense to do so. Captain America died so everyone could live. Black Widow eventually does the same in Endgame. We’ve got no shortage of savior figures in the Marvel universe. And yet they can’t even bring themselves to have a real discussion about letting Vision sacrifice himself — just like they would do and have done. And, again, we’re talking about … a robot.

I understand that the earth was under apocalyptic siege and no one really understood what they were facing. No one is thinking rationally. The Avengers were undefeated and probably thought they’d come away with the W. The Avengers do their best to solve them problem and save Vision. I just need to point out that their decision makes zero sense.

The plot hole isn’t totally gaping. The way to brush it off? Not even the Avengers act logically when facing a universe-altering threat. But that’s not working for me, because of how the terrible decision triggered all the events that followed. And now it’s started burning a hole in my skull the size of an Infinity Stone. I can’t unsee it, and I needed to share it with people to help ease my frustration over a movie that is otherwise absolutely amazing (and, in my opinion, the third best Marvel movie ever made).

Thank you for letting me get that off my chest. I’m sorry if it becomes a viewing problem for you, too.

[listicle id=1030282]

Why Urban Meyer signing Tim Tebow casts even more doubt on his NFL chances

Professional football players will see right through this move.

Despite real and valid concerns from past and present NFL players, new Jacksonville Jaguars coach Urban Meyer has given Tim Tebow, most recently a baseball player and TV talking head, a chance to play tight end — a position he has never played before — in the NFL this season, when he will be 34 years old.

If you know anything about Meyer, this comes as no surprise. He previously hired a strength coach accused of racist behavior at Iowa, and has made a career out of avoiding any sort of accountability. He’s been able to do that because he was a college coach, and one of the best ever. Those guys have long gotten away with anything and everything.

It doesn’t work that way in the NFL. Meyer could have learned this from his pal Greg Schiano, who flamed out after trying to run the Tampa Bay Buccaneers as if they were the Rutgers Scarlet Knights, only to find that grown men playing under contract don’t appreciate having their coach pretend they have absolute power.

A college coach can lead by force; they have total control over a player’s scholarship and playing time and reputation with NFL scouts, and until recently had all of the leverage because it was difficult for players to transfer.

Running an NFL team is more about earning the right to lead by implementing successful systems and treating players like, well, valued employees rather than free labor “student-athletes.”

Nothing suggest Meyer won’t be able to do the former. Everything suggests he’ll fail miserably at the latter.

Because signing Tebow isn’t just Meyer giving his old pal a 39th chance. It’s a message to current and potential future Jaguars players about what matters to Meyer. Demonstrated skill and persistent training are secondary to existing loyalty. That’s poison in a professional organization.

Players in the NFL are smart enough to know it’s not a true meritocracy — they remember Colin Kaepernick, and they see that a vast majority of the head coaches and GMs are white — but having a coach flaunt it in order to …. what? Get a PR boost? Add some “leadership” to the room?

There’s just no way to look at signing Tim Tebow to play professional football at this juncture as a move meant purely to make the team better. It sends the message, instead, that this is Meyer’s fiefdom and he’ll run it as he sees fit.

It’s demoralizing, quite frankly, that a person with Meyer’s history now has in front of him an opportunity to build a team around one of the most impressive QB prospects of all time. As hard as it is to root for Meyer, the alternative means Trevor Lawrence is mired in a mess and I don’t want to see that. He’s too good to be held back.

Meyer’s ultimate success will come down to how well he teaches the game and whether he can figure out a way to put his players in position to win. The difference in the NFL is that as soon as he falters on those fronts — and he will — players will question him and offer feedback. They need to be a part of the solution.

Considering the fact that he’s ignored so many people who told him how signing Tebow would play, I don’t feel good about Meyer doing what he needs to do in order to adjust and make it work. That’s just not who he is.

[mm-video type=playlist id=01f09m93q11d4tbgfy player_id=none image=https://ftw.usatoday.com/wp-content/plugins/mm-video/images/playlist-icon.png]

Bob Baffert has done irreparable harm to horse racing. But will this force a change?

It’s long past time for a reckoning.

There was a theory — or maybe a hope — during the 37-year lull between Triple Crown winners that having a super horse come along again would reinvigorate the sport.

Then American Pharoah won the Kentucky Derby, Preakness Stakes and Belmont Stakes in 2015.

Justify did it in 2018.

Not much changed. Those events remained appointment viewing for a large number of sports fans, and crowds flocked to them (unless there was a pandemic.) Betting on horses remained robust at around $10 billion a year, even as betting on other sports expanded.

The lesson: Horse racing is already wedged into America’s sports consciousness, and that’s enough to keep the industry going.

The only thing threatening this whole equilibrium is, well, what we saw play out this year, with Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit testing positive for a prohibited anti-inflammatory drug.

Despite that potentially disqualifying test result — which has not yet been confirmed by a second sample from Kentucky — Medina Spirit was allowed to run (with special conditions, including extra tests that he passed) in the Preakness, where he finished third.

Perhaps, as USA TODAY’s Dan Wolken argued, that’s for the better. The controversy over the scandal would have only grown as the colt chased a Triple Crown. The horse’s trainer, Bob Baffert, was already doing what he could to minimize his own exposure and opted not to attend the Preakness Stakes.

The problem is this: The damage is done, and yet it does not seem likely that we’re any closer to a true reckoning that would lead to lasting change.

Baffert, in a statement given to NBC, maintained his innocence:

“I have been deeply saddened to see this case portrayed as a ‘doping’ scandal or betamethasone labeled as a ‘banned’ substance. Neither is remotely true. Betamethasone is an allowable and commonly used medication in horse racing. Further, 21 picograms would have zero pharmacology in a horse. All I ask is that everyone not rush to judgment and allow all of the facts, evidence and science to come to light.”

In case you haven’t been following the story closely, Baffert originally claimed that Medina Spirit had never been given betamethasone before changing his story to say that an ointment used on the horse included the drug.

And that’s the problem: If the most well-known trainer, with seemingly unlimited resources, is not really sure what medications are being used on his horses, what’s going on with the rest of the sport?

Baffert should be different. He should be the exemplar of a clean trainer who takes impeccable care of his horses. But he has now been cited five times for violations in the last year; the New York Times found 29 violations over 40 years. Baffert has deflected many of these charges successfully: Justify, for instance, tested positive for a banned substance after the Santa Anita Derby, but the case was eventually dismissed because it was blamed on contaminated feed. If Medina Spirit’s second sample comes back positive, you can expect a long, drawn out legal challenge that will throw the “official” result of the Kentucky Derby in doubt for years.

Maybe that helps Baffert sleep better at night, but it does nothing for horse racing’s reputation. Every time the Triple Crown chase involves talk of drugged horses, it alienates bettors who want a fair contest but also threatens to awaken casual sports fans to how horses who aren’t running in million-dollar races are treated. It creates discussion around the ethics of driving such young horses — or any horses, for that matter — to be so competitive, and the lengths some might go to in order to keep them running.

Perhaps that’s a conversation we should be having, but there’s still a lot of money at stake in horse racing so it’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

So what can be done? There’s long been talk of forming a national governing body to establish rules and regulations around the sport. Right now, much of that is left to individual state racing commissions, leading to confusion.

Thanks to legislation passed late last year, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency will take over monitoring the medicines used on horses and a regulatory board will monitor other track safety issues starting in July 2022. That could lend a sheen of legitimacy to horse racing.

Whether the sport as a whole accepts these changes remains to be seen. Horse racing is made up of many disparate interests — trainers, owners, breeders — and it’s hard to imagine them all openly embracing one national program.

But it needs to happen.

Having a Triple Crown winner (or two) turned out to be only a nice boost to the sport. It was not transformative.

Having horses continue to test positive for substances that should not be in their blood on any race day let alone the biggest one of the year, though, could be transformative. It could bring the whole thing down.

Nick Castellanos clobbered a dinger after a fan told him to picture Rob Manfred’s face on the ball

Nick Castellanos is not over that questionable suspension MLB gave him.

You may recall that, earlier this year, Cincinnati Reds outfielder Nick Castellanos was suspended two games for supposedly inciting a dug-out clearing incident (by having the audacity to celebrate scoring a run.)

The decision was heavy-handed and pointless, even by Major League Baseball’s established standards. Castellanos had been put on base by taking a 92-mile-per-hour fastball to the ribs and later scored on a passed ball, which meant the player trying to tag him out was the pitcher who beaned him. Castellanos dared to get excited in his vicinity, and that was an affront to some sacred rule, leading to a scuffle … and then the suspension?

Well, Castellanos isn’t over it, in case you were wondering.

This came during what would eventually be a 6-5 extra-inning win by the Reds over the Rockies. Manfred, by the way, is MLB commissioner.

Look at the look on Castellanos’ face! The pettiness. It is so good.

I’d say that Castellanos found an elegant way to get his point across without actually being the one to deliver the point, but considering the fact that he got blamed the last time around despite not really being the one to start the fracas, this could go any which way. ‘Thou shalt not bump fists with those who would slander the commish’ is probably one of the unwritten rules.

[vertical-gallery id=1028959]

Tim Tebow could have been much more than a sideshow in Jacksonville

The former Heisman-winning quarterback could have stayed in the NFL if he were willing to make the switch to tight end at the time.

The Jacksonville Jaguars made headlines on Monday when a joint report from NFL insiders Ian Rapoport and Tom Pelissero indicated the team plans to sign former Florida and NFL quarterback Tim Tebow as a tight end. Tebow has spent the last few years playing baseball in the New York Mets organization, but he announced his retirement from baseball earlier this year.

As someone who grew up a fan of both the Gators and the Jaguars, my feelings upon hearing the news were mixed. I remember when Tebow was traded by the Broncos in 2012, and the Jags were one of the finalists to land him. I remember how disappointed I was when he ended up with the Jets instead of coming home to Jacksonville.

But Tebow was 25 then. Now, he’s 33. He hasn’t been on an NFL roster in any capacity in six years (and not on a 53-man in nine years), and he is looking to play professional football at a position he hasn’t played since his freshman year of high school.

And I’d be lying if I said I’m as excited for Tebow to join the Jags as I would’ve been when I was a teenager.

Tebow’s one of the greatest athletes to play the collegiate game, and he’s rightly considered an all-time college football quarterback (if not the best ever). That makes it all the more painful to accept the fact that one of my childhood heroes has been reduced to little more than a sideshow at the professional level.

[lawrence-related id=42736,42474]

Did Tebow get a fair shot as an NFL quarterback? Probably not. After leading the Broncos to a playoff win in 2011, Denver decided to take advantage of the opportunity to land an aging superstar, Peyton Manning (a decision that paid off in the form of a Super Bowl), and shipped Tebow to New York. He started two games for the Jets in 2012, and he never made a 53-man roster again.

Considering the abysmal quarterbacks currently occupying roster spots in the league, it’s hard to imagine Tebow was really worse than all of them back then. But with that said, his football career didn’t have to end the way it did.

The idea to switch to tight end wasn’t originally Tebow’s. When he struggled to make a roster as a quarterback, multiple teams expressed interest in trying him out at tight end, but his stubbornness won out, and he made the switch to professional baseball instead.

Tebow wasn’t exactly bad for someone who hadn’t played the game since high school, but it’s hard to believe he would’ve reached AAA or the Mets’ spring training roster were he an unknown late-round prospect instead of a household name.

To Tebow’s credit, he stuck to baseball for a while and was content with the minor league grind. That’s why it’s puzzling that Tebow chose to retire after being named to New York’s spring training roster again this year, and even more so that he immediately made an attempt to return to football, at a new position, no less.

I understand why people are starting to tire of Tebow. If I were, for example, a minor league prospect with the Mets working on my game for my entire life or an undrafted free agent tight end desperate for just one opportunity to prove myself, I probably wouldn’t think too highly of him using his platform to continue to take up roster spots that he may not deserve, either.

[lawrence-related id=37742,37234]

But I think that’s a little unfair to Tebow. I can’t tell you with a straight face that I wouldn’t keep trying to make it at the highest level of sports as long as my body allowed if I were in his position.

More than anything, I just find it sad. Tebow was one of my first sports heroes, and no matter your opinions on his athletic career, it’s hard to dislike a guy who personally devotes so much of his time to philanthropy and good works.

But Tebow is more than just a swell guy who helps a lot of people — he’s one of the unique and most talented athletes of all time. And if he had been willing to make the switch to tight end when he was still in his prime, he could still be playing football to this day.

But he didn’t. And now, most of the media speaks of Tebow as if he’s a sideshow, an event to watch like a Jake Paul boxing match rather than the world-class athlete he is. Tebow may not have been to blame for it back in 2011, but he’s certainly not doing himself any favors now.

I sincerely hope Tebow works out for the Jags, because I grew up a hardcore fan of both. I’d like nothing more than to see the two succeed in tandem. But as a realist, it’s hard for me to take what feels like a desperation move from both sides seriously.

[lawrence-related id=42758,42280,42232,35788]

[vertical-gallery id=16464]

[vertical-gallery id=16467]

[vertical-gallery id=14944]

Opinion: Prepare yourself for a College Football Super League

European soccer changed history on Sunday with The Super League. For us CFB fans, surely we are next in line to have our sport changed.

European soccer changed history on Sunday, announcing the creation of The Super League. Twelve of the biggest clubs in the world including Barcelona, Manchester United, Liverpool, and Real Madrid have all broken off from the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) to create their own, special tournament.

The driving force behind The Super League? Well, we all know the answer to that.

According to the New York Times, up to 15 clubs will split $3.5 billion — yes, with a ‘B’ — just for joining. More cash is inbound via television deals and advertisements. A truly historic (and not for the right reasons) day for the sport Europeans call football.

Back across the Pond and our own version of football has to be staring something similar in the face. The revenue opportunities that could present prove to be too good to pass down for some of the top college football programs in the country.

The gap between the Power Five conferences of the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and Pac-12 and the Group of Five conferences is already large enough.

ESPN, Fox, and even CBS pay conferences a lump sum just to broadcast their games. Recently, ESPN announced a new television deal with the SEC for $300 million annually over 10 years. Quite the step up from the annual $55 million CBS had been paying.

Imagine what kind of deal Mickey Mouse would draw up if the elite football schools decided to ban together, leaving other long-time opponents and rivals behind, just as the European soccer clubs have.

Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas, and USC, just to name a few, all in the same conference, playing each other week in and week out with top 10 matchups every single Saturday. And of course, most importantly, a significant amount of money in the schools pockets.

To a casual college football fan, seeing top programs playing each other is a draw to watch the sport.

Outside the College Football Playoff, the three most-watched games of the 2020 season were Clemson-Notre Dame I, Clemson-Notre Dame II, and Alabama-Georgia. An average of 9.8 million viewers across NBC, ABC, and CBS broadcasts. The big programs sell.

Die-hard fans would view this as the end to the sport we love so dearly.

No longer will nonconference matchups such as Texas’ upcoming home and home series with Alabama in 2022 and 2023 have as much meaning. Why? Because with a super league, the two would find a way to play each other every single year.

Traditions, pageantry, and decades of history thrown down the drain because of greed. Texas saw one of the country’s greatest rivalries dissolve when Texas A&M left for the SEC in 2012. Greed with the Longhorn Network played at least a role as to why the Aggies felt the need to leave.

Ask a fan on either side and the rebirth of the Lone Star Showdown would be the No. 1 thing on their wish list.

Programs that are left outside of a hypothetical super league would feel the effects in a painful way. No TV deal, no exposure, no top recruits, no success at the highest level. Just ask the Group of Five schools how it’s going for them at the moment. Take those problems and multiply them by 1,000 just so the biggest programs can have a couple bucks.

Since money rules everything, some kind of switch to end college football the way we know and love it is surely inevitable. If I had to guess, Texas would undoubtedly be a part and possibly even a leader in the creation of something new.

European football was declared dead on Sunday, April 18, 2021.

America, you’re next.

Opinion: Annika Sorenstam, Gary Player shame golf by accepting Presidential Medal of Freedom from Donald Trump

Columnist Christine Brennan on how Annika Sorenstam and Gary Player accepting the Medal of Freedom from President Trump shames golf.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump encouraged his supporters to never accept defeat, then watched as hundreds of them stormed the U.S. Capitol and rampaged through the halls of Congress, later saying, “We love you, you’re very special” to those involved in the deadly and appalling attack.

On Thursday, Hall of Fame golfers Annika Sorenstam and Gary Player stood with Trump at the White House to accept the Presidential Medal of Freedom. They likely were the first outsiders to be with Trump at the White House since the reprehensible violence just 16 blocks away.

Sorenstam and Player, widely regarded as paragons of sportsmanship and honor in their game, did not cancel on Trump. They did not note the horror that had taken place on his watch and decide that Thursday wasn’t an appropriate time to celebrate with him at the White House. They did not care about the gravity of the situation, about the calls from political leaders to remove Trump by impeachment or the 25th Amendment.

No. They willingly chose to accept an award from Trump and be seen with him a day after his words and actions launched one of the most shameful incidents in U.S. history.

There will be those who say Sorenstam, who was born in Sweden, and Player, from South Africa, can choose to accept an award from Trump whenever they wish. That is true. What’s more, Sorenstam was an ardent supporter of Trump’s failed re-election bid, retweeting Jack Nicklaus’ multi-paragraph endorsement of Trump in the days before the 2020 election.

But Sorenstam and Player don’t just represent themselves. They represent all of golf, a mostly lily-white sport that has struggled for decades, to its continuing detriment, to attract women and people of color – just as Trump, a creature of the game, has denigrated those very same people.

SON KNOWS BEST: Gary Player’s son thinks father should decline Presidential Medal of Freedom

As representatives of their game, and as business people who benefit greatly from it, their reputations are sullied, forever. Sorenstam and Player now will be attached to Trump at this horrible time in our nation’s history, forever. They will be known as the people who had the chance to gracefully suggest another day might be better to celebrate golfers in this nation – golfers, for heaven’s sake – and they refused to do so.

They had nothing to do with the insurrection of the Trump mob on Wednesday, of course, but they happily became Trump’s Thursday accessories. They celebrated with him as our nation mourns what he has wrought.

A third golfer, the late Babe Didrikson Zaharias, also was honored by Trump. This is just a guess, but it’s hard to believe the strong, legendary, groundbreaking Babe would have allowed herself to have anything to do with that awful man.

While Player, 85, who once supported his nation’s racist policy of apartheid before later denouncing it, is an understandable Trump ally, Sorenstam’s involvement with Trump is perplexing. She is one of the greatest women to ever play the game. Now 50, Sorenstam is known as a trailblazer for playing in a men’s PGA Tour event, the Colonial, in 2003, enduring sexist taunts from a couple of male players while drawing huge crowds and acquitting herself quite well before missing the cut.

When she retweeted Nicklaus’ endorsement of Trump, I texted her a question:

“How do you reconcile Trump’s awful record on women – bragging and joking about sexually assaulting women (“Access Hollywood” tape), calling the Democratic VP nominee a ‘monster,’ being accused of sexual assault or sexual harassment by at least 26 women, etc. – while being a woman who has forged an amazing career around the issues of inclusion for women and treating women equally and fairly and with respect?”

She never replied. On Thursday afternoon, I texted again, this time to say I’d like to talk to her about accepting the Medal of Freedom a day after the awful rampage of Trump supporters at the Capitol. She did not reply.

It turns out that the ceremony for Sorenstam and Player was not open to the press. There were no photos immediately available. The event was basically held in secret.

Actually, it was held in shame.

[lawrence-related id=778082654,778082636]

The impact of COVID-19 on college football was foreseeable

Hubris got the best of Florida and the SEC three weeks into its schedule, with cancelations of two games due to positive coronavirus tests.

[jwplayer 9tjU7C84]

The worst fears of every program around the country this season were realized at the University of Florida this week.

After 21 football players tested positive for COVID-19, the school paused all football operations and postponed the team’s game against LSU, previously scheduled to take place this Saturday.

Now, Florida’s game against Missouri next weekend is in serious doubt, as well. And we’re left wondering, who could possibly have seen this coming?

I don’t mean to be smug. It isn’t productive to pull an “I-told-you-so” in the middle of a global pandemic that has cost over 200,000 lives in the United States alone.

But when the strategy from the get-go was to have players, many of whom are living on campus and frequently interacting with other students, travel weekly across state lines to play a contact sport against nearly 100 other players who have been doing the exact same thing, it’s not hard to imagine where that will lead.

In my column on June 12 about the NCAA’s return-to-play plan, I posed a hypothetical scenario.

What if there are mid-season outbreaks?

Allow me to paint a hypothetical picture for you. It’s Oct. 24, 2020. The Florida Gators are enjoying their bye week before a matchup against Georgia to decide the SEC East when disaster strikes. A significant portion of players on the team — say, more than a third — come in contact with an infected person(s) and are now testing positive.

What does Florida do in that situation? Surely, its players (even ones who are testing negative) can no longer travel, right? Certainly, they can no longer play a contact sport against those who haven’t been exposed while tangentially exposing hundreds, or even thousands, of other people in the process, no?

Now, this hypothetical is reality (albeit, about a week off). And Florida’s not the only one.

Vanderbilt canceled its game this weekend against Missouri, as well, citing an increase in positive cases on the team.

In his announcement of the postponement of the LSU game, UF Athletic Director Scott Stricklin said that the league set up its schedule with these situations in mind.

Every school has an open date on Dec. 12, the weekend before the SEC Championship Game, that can be used for rescheduling games due to COVID-19. The LSU game has been tentatively scheduled for this date.

But if the Gators also had to make up their game against Missouri, that process would be much murkier. Assuming there is no change to the date of the SEC Championship, that game could potentially be rescheduled to the middle of the week, depending on its significance in the SEC East division race.

Florida isn’t exactly dead in the water. Perhaps it’s able to resume play in a decently timely manner. But it’s entirely possible at this point that its season could be in jeopardy.

For a while, it seemed the team was doing relatively well at managing the spread of the virus. But as so many of us predicted, a single road trip was enough to change that. Now, it’s all up in the air.

And this was the risk that college football administrators knew they’d be taking by playing football this fall. If they took these events into account in their risk/reward calculus, then so be it.

But don’t let any of them tell you they didn’t know this would happen.

[lawrence-related id=25538,25493,25508,25498]

Florida Gators and its pair of Kyles could be the SEC’s newest gem

We’ll learn everything we need to know about whether Florida’s offense is sustainable at this level over the next month or so.

[jwplayer YUMTYx0j-er0jUifI]

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by USA TODAY Sports and has been republished in part below. 

We are very early in an admittedly strange and unpredictable season, but it’s worth asking: Does Florida have the potential to be this year’s LSU?

Two games is a small sample size, but we’ve seen enough of the Gators’ offense to know that they’re going to score and score and score and score. Though their defense is still a question mark, that was the formula LSU used last year to rampage through the SEC, setting all kinds of offensive records while allowing a ton of points until their defense caught up later on in the season.

Gators quarterback Kyle Trask is probably not on the level of Joe Burrow, but he’s played well through two weeks and there are some pretty interesting comparisons between the Florida receivers group and the deep roster of playmakers LSU had last season.

Kyle Pitts, the best pass-catching tight end in the country, had four receptions and two touchdowns in Saturday’s 38-24 win over South Carolina while Kadarius Toney had six receptions for 86 yards. Four other players caught at least one pass of more than 10 yards. Trask has a ton of options, and coach Dan Mullen is one of the best at building an offense that makes opponents cover the whole field. How good? Florida has had 21 offensive possessions this year against South Carolina and Ole Miss. Of those, 11 have resulted in touchdowns, four in field goals, three in punts and three in turnovers.

We’ll learn everything we need to know about whether Florida’s offense is sustainable at this level over the next month or so, which includes games against LSU on Oct. 17 and Georgia on Nov. 7.

But so far, they look unstoppable enough to be the favorite coming out of the SEC East — for now.

[lawrence-related id=25112,25098,25100,25074]

[vertical-gallery id=25052]

Is the ACC’s 346-team NCAA Tournament idea feasible?

We don’t yet know how the season will be altered so it can be played in a post-COVID world but it’s a safe bet that it will be significant.

[jwplayer TdYFkhXp]

College basketball is in a bit of disarray.

After canceling the NCAA Tournament last season due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020-21 season is also in jeopardy. Several leagues, including the Pac-12, have postponed all athletic competition until Jan. 1, meaning that it’s currently up in the air whether non-conference games will be able to happen.

If the entirety of Division I chose to move to conference-only basketball schedules, it would have a trickle-down effect within the entire sport. When you remove opportunities for mid-major teams to score upsets against higher-quality opponents, how can the NCAA Tournament Committee possibly evaluate non-power conference teams?

The 15 men’s basketball coaches in the ACC think they have their solution: an all-inclusive, 346-team tournament.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Every Division I program eligible for the NCAA Tournament this year would qualify, with the opening rounds replacing conference tournaments. Early seeding would be geography-based, and after the first week of play, the tournament would resemble its usual field of 64-68 teams.

This idea certainly has its positives. For one, it makes up for the fact that the tournament was canceled last year by allowing every team an opportunity to play in the tournament. Additionally, it would incentivize players not to opt-out, as they would be guaranteed an NCAA Tournament appearance.

Perhaps the most convincing argument for the NCAA will be money, though. Canceling the tournament last year hurt the coffers big-time, and focusing what will certainly be a mess of a season around what is already by far the most profitable component of college basketball would be an understandable move.

But logistically, this idea is a disaster.

First of all, it requires an improvement in the state of the pandemic within the United States.

Though the NBA seems to be managing its bubble with success, the NBA bubble only had 22 teams at its peak. Increasing that number by almost 16 times would require an unprecedented level of organization and preparation.

The number of people that would need to be tested and quarantined would be in the thousands, and all that effort would result in half of those people being sent home after one game of basketball.

Additionally, while the NCAA would likely see a revenue increase as a result of the expanded tournament, it almost certainly wouldn’t offset the drastic increase in expenses that would be required to make such a setup work.

Not to mention that setting up a 346-team bracket would be an exhausting and confusing ordeal, and the fact remains that the vast majority of teams in the tournament would have virtually no shot at winning a title.

Though college hoops fans are likely salivating at the idea of an expanded tournament, the logistical hurdles simply seem too large to overcome.

So, what alternatives remain? CBS Sports’ Matt Norlander presents an interesting hypothetical.

What if instead of ending the year with a massive tournament, the NCAA decided to bookend the season with tournaments? The NCAA Tournament would remain in its usual format, but the season would begin with 11 nonconference, 32-team tournaments in late November and December.

Making these tournaments double-elimination would provide each team with roughly a third of the nonconference games of a usual season, and it would help ease the burden of the tournament committee when deciding which mid-major teams are worthy of making the big dance.

Norlander’s solution may not be feasible, either, but it seems to be a more workable path than what the ACC is currently suggesting.

No matter what, though, this college basketball season will certainly be extraordinarily atypical. And while we don’t yet know how the season will be altered so it can be played (if it can be played) in a post-COVID world, it seems like a safe bet that it will be significantly altered to some degree.

[lawrence-related id=20819,20755,20674,20506]