Why the AAC Medical Experts Differ from the PAC and Big10

[NewEnglandBull]

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2020/08/14/ncaa-football-covid-medical-experts-big-ten-pac-12
 

[Brad]

Quote

Universities are sprinkled throughout the nation in regions that are culturally and politically dissimilar from one another. The debate over college athletics is, in a way, a microcosm of society in general.

 

[Outlaw]

MONEY

[Brad]

Quote

“I can’t address what other doctors are thinking or how they’ve arrived at their decisions,”

This is what always makes me laugh at those saying "listen to the scientists" or "follow the science".  Not only does science contradict itself but it involves hypotheses which often get confused as fact.  Some scientists have appeared on both ends of their own argument.  It takes a hell of a lot more than "following the science" to make a decision that impacts so many parts of life.

[Brad]

Quote

Optics are a problem too. The athletes are engaging in contact behavior that goes against many state and local regulations, at least out West.

Exactly.  This is why everyone out here knew the California-dominated PAC-12 had no chance.  Optics are not science, they are political.

[Brad]

Quote

The divisiveness within America has filtered into college athletics, even to the medical community. The physicians can’t agree. And their opinions are under attack because of their colleagues’ decisions.

Meanwhile, the NCAA, aside from releasing guidelines, has mostly removed itself from the ordeal. Instead of making cohesive medical decisions under one ruling board of physicians, college football’s fall fate will be determined among various medical boards, each with differing opinions, political beliefs and, above all, risk tolerance.

And here we are.

However, I'm not sure that one ruling board is the answer either.  This notion that ALL power must be centralized at the top always bothers me.  It requires that authority to be completely apolitical and altruistic at heart.  That is impossible these days.  I am glad we have conference leaders that didn't each look for someone else to make a decision for their conference (many did) and they have chosen a path they believe optimal.  

[puc86]

People confuse a scientist saying something with science which makes no more sense than confusing Steve’s posts on here with law. Science takes time, science takes studies, science takes peer review and what we mostly have on this subject is opining from scientists that are more educated guesses than anything  else (it doesn’t mean they are necessarily wrong but their appeals to the authority of science are a bit of a stretch).

[DELdaBull]

35 minutes ago, Brad said:

 

Which SUCKS. This is a public health issue. It should not be political.  But these days in the USA EVERYTHING is a political issue. EVERYTHING.  

[NewEnglandBull]

 

[Brad]

Just speculating... So the Big 10 was the first to jump into the pool attempting to assert themselves as leader of the P5, the cowardly PAC 12 immediately followed suit, there was no chance they would be allowed to play and most are probably protesting/rioting anyway.  Anyhow, the other three SEC, ACC and B12 said screw you, we're not following, which also these days is a great virtue according to the political class (follow, don't lead).  My guess is if it looks like the P3 will actually get games in, the Big 10 will look to somehow change their position.  They'll claim they followed the science, but there was a flaw (not their fault).  Of course, the time to reverse their decision is short.  Would love to see the coaches continue to push their leaders to be fully accountable for their decisions.