NCAA allowing on campus voluntary activities to resume June 1

Get the low down on Griz/FCS Football
Post Reply
dirtysoup
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 7:20 am
Location: Great Falls, MT

Hopefully the beginning of normalcy, sort of.

Sources: Voluntary campus workouts OK in June http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... ources-say
via @ESPN App http://espn.com/app
They hate us cuz they ain't us
PlayerRep
Posts: 27089
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:06 am

This is a very positive development, in my view.
nzone
Posts: 2563
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:46 pm
Location: Great Falls

Great news for sure...
Berkeley_Griz
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat May 09, 2020 6:00 am

dirtysoup wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 4:01 pm
Hopefully the beginning of normalcy, sort of.

Sources: Voluntary campus workouts OK in June http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... ources-say
via @ESPN App http://espn.com/app
Good to get things moving forward. I will be interested to see what steps the campuses take to mitigate risk, as they no doubt will, for the sake of coaches and players' families as much as for the players themselves. Things will undoubtedly look very different for a while.
PlayerRep
Posts: 27089
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:06 am

Berkeley_Griz wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 6:45 am
dirtysoup wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 4:01 pm
Hopefully the beginning of normalcy, sort of.

Sources: Voluntary campus workouts OK in June http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... ources-say
via @ESPN App http://espn.com/app
Good to get things moving forward. I will be interested to see what steps the campuses take to mitigate risk, as they no doubt will, for the sake of coaches and players' families as much as for the players themselves. Things will undoubtedly look very different for a while.
What risks? Coaches, expert perhaps strength coach, can stay at a distance. Trainers, just like healthcare workers. Players' families? Most of the players are from out of state. Has any college football player even gotten especially sick from the virus? If players don't have other health problems, and presumably most players don't, they aren't vulnerable at all. The only risk from/for players is that they test positive, and then preventative/corrective measures have to be taken temporarily or even permanently. Also, it will be important to avoid positive tests for players, to keep certain administrators and people from flipping out.

Training, lifting, practicing, and even playing, aren't risky to anyone's health, if the older or less healthy coaches keep their distance. The risk is that players will infect other people outside the program, including their families. Virtually all of that risk is already there now, as the US opens up. For the Griz, training in the big Performance Center, with trainers available, is probably less risky than training in the smaller gym/places they have probably already training in. And now in MT, regular gyms/fitness centers are open. I'd rather have the players lifting/training in the Performance Center, rather than random gyms.
Berkeley_Griz
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat May 09, 2020 6:00 am

PlayerRep wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 12:24 pm
Berkeley_Griz wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 6:45 am


Good to get things moving forward. I will be interested to see what steps the campuses take to mitigate risk, as they no doubt will, for the sake of coaches and players' families as much as for the players themselves. Things will undoubtedly look very different for a while.
What risks? Coaches, expert perhaps strength coach, can stay at a distance. Trainers, just like healthcare workers. Players' families? Most of the players are from out of state. Has any college football player even gotten especially sick from the virus? If players don't have other health problems, and presumably most players don't, they aren't vulnerable at all. The only risk from/for players is that they test positive, and then preventative/corrective measures have to be taken temporarily or even permanently. Also, it will be important to avoid positive tests for players, to keep certain administrators and people from flipping out.

Training, lifting, practicing, and even playing, aren't risky to anyone's health, if the older or less healthy coaches keep their distance. The risk is that players will infect other people outside the program, including their families. Virtually all of that risk is already there now, as the US opens up. For the Griz, training in the big Performance Center, with trainers available, is probably less risky than training in the smaller gym/places they have probably already training in. And now in MT, regular gyms/fitness centers are open. I'd rather have the players lifting/training in the Performance Center, rather than random gyms.
Just the risk you mention - coaches, strength staff, families, etc. are much more likely to fall into more vulnerable populations, so certain measures will need to be taken, obviously including distancing. I agree the risk to any individual player is probably very low, and the only risk is any one infection rapidly spreading among team members and then potentially reaching to more of those vulnerable people mentioned.

Decent overview from SI if you care to peruse: https://www.si.com/college/2020/05/18/c ... eparations
Berkeley_Griz
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat May 09, 2020 6:00 am

PlayerRep wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 12:24 pm
Berkeley_Griz wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 6:45 am


Good to get things moving forward. I will be interested to see what steps the campuses take to mitigate risk, as they no doubt will, for the sake of coaches and players' families as much as for the players themselves. Things will undoubtedly look very different for a while.
What risks? Coaches, expert perhaps strength coach, can stay at a distance. Trainers, just like healthcare workers. Players' families? Most of the players are from out of state. Has any college football player even gotten especially sick from the virus? If players don't have other health problems, and presumably most players don't, they aren't vulnerable at all. The only risk from/for players is that they test positive, and then preventative/corrective measures have to be taken temporarily or even permanently. Also, it will be important to avoid positive tests for players, to keep certain administrators and people from flipping out.

Training, lifting, practicing, and even playing, aren't risky to anyone's health, if the older or less healthy coaches keep their distance. The risk is that players will infect other people outside the program, including their families. Virtually all of that risk is already there now, as the US opens up. For the Griz, training in the big Performance Center, with trainers available, is probably less risky than training in the smaller gym/places they have probably already training in. And now in MT, regular gyms/fitness centers are open. I'd rather have the players lifting/training in the Performance Center, rather than random gyms.
Ah, and forgot to say - yes, I agree that I think with proper planning it's much easier to keep the athletes safe working out on campus than leaving them to their own devices elsewhere.
User avatar
Yukon
Posts: 3592
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:51 pm
Location: Colorado

"Facts are stubborn things" John Adams
PlayerRep
Posts: 27089
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:06 am

I heard UM may open the Performance Center on June 1.
George Ferguson
Posts: 6013
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 2:35 pm
Location: Havre, MT
Former Name: havgrizfan

Haslem has already said they are sticking to groups of no more than 10 when on-campus workouts resume even though Phase II allows for more. He also said that they are still making it mandatory for the players who return from out of state to isolate before being allowed into the facilities even though Bullock lifted the quarentine request. He said they may adjust the time frame of that out of state players have to self isolate but that that overall, they are sticking with the plan they already had in place before Montana announced Phase II because they would rather be on the side of caution.
PlayerRep
Posts: 27089
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:06 am

George Ferguson wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 5:31 pm
Haslem has already said they are sticking to groups of no more than 10 when on-campus workouts resume even though Phase II allows for more. He also said that they are still making it mandatory for the players who return from out of state to isolate before being allowed into the facilities even though Bullock lifted the quarentine request. He said they may adjust the time frame of that out of state players have to self isolate but that that overall, they are sticking with the plan they already had in place before Montana announced Phase II because they would rather be on the side of caution.
He's as conservative as the Ivy presidents. Sounds unduly cautious to me. Does he really think the players won't be hanging with each other when they return? Does he think that returning players won't lift somewhere for 10 days? At some point, the "safe side" is ridiculous.
User avatar
Yukon
Posts: 3592
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:51 pm
Location: Colorado

now look at this hot pile of garbage:

"Facts are stubborn things" John Adams
Post Reply