Rutgers announces on line classes only for the fall semester
- Thread starter IU Fan 1989
- Start date
- Status
We've already counted it as a win and we're not giving it back.
NCAA Football 20 will be played by the players on an xbox. Players will control their own likeness in the video game.
I wonder how many students at these schools will just opt to take the year off if they aren't going to get the full experience. Similarly, I would think if athletics are cancelled completely there would be a mass of transfers - assuming other schools are planning to play. I know it might not have such an impact on Ivy League schools, but I would think a state school like Rutgers would lose a lot of students, both athlete and non-athlete. OTOH, I guess if a kid is saving the cost of housing without sacrificing credits toward a degree, the savings might be worth it.
**Disclaimer**I know that IU hasn't gone to online only, but this might apply if they do.
The current lawsuit against IU for tuition reimbursement makes a clever argument.
Which is, you can pay $X for an IU online degree (I don't recall the exact number). The university sells it as being an IU degree, no asterisk, same classes, same professors, etc.
But an IU degree on-campus costs like three times as much. So there's clearly a value given for being on campus.
If you're a senior and classes would be online anyway, switch to online and save the cash. The real question would then become, if you're an underclassman and you switched to IU online, would you be able to get back on campus as an on-campus student once it reopens.
i don't know why it would matter. the only hiccup to transferring schools other than getting accepted is what credits transfer. I would imagine since it is iu online vs iu offline, that there wouldn't be an issue with credits transferring or being accepted.
could be wrong that is my thoughts. hopefully the skyrocketing tuition costs get a course correction before my kids hit college.
could be wrong that is my thoughts. hopefully the skyrocketing tuition costs get a course correction before my kids hit college.
So IU is 1-0 already...
There will be no forfeits. There likely will be a major revision of schedules with games against fcs schools and a reduced conference schedule to account for non football playing schools. Indiana would be unlikely to not have football unless the sentiment becomes overwhelming to just shut it down.
I know it doesn't really apply here and I'll probably get called out for "being political", but just passing on the news that ICE announced today that any foreign student that is at a school that is online only now in the Fall must transfer to a school having physical classes or take the online classes from their home country.
Solid...
Sports is compatible with online-only classes. You have practice with all the guys (gals) in your bubble then go back to your largely empty dorm and attend class by computer. Actually that's not a bad way to do it.
I'd like to see the league adjust schedules so every team plays an equal number of Big Ten teams.
There's no way in hell I'd pay full ticket for online only college.
But if Indiana had as many deaths per capita as New Jersey (NJ is currently more than 5x higher) then I'd probably be more onboard with online only options.
sounds like the ivy league is going to announce tomorrow that they're moving all fall sports to spring.
We'll have to wait and see if that decision spreads among the other conferences.
Because I strongly believe if it's delayed like that, we can/should just write off the season. Those kinds of decisions are trying to be half-pregnant. Either the kids play and we keep the teams in as much of a bubble as we can to keep infections down, or we accept that it's not going to happen this season.
I'd rather IU & Purdue just play the OOB game as their only game for the fall vs. putting my faith in a spring football season being to come together logistically and because of the stress such a short offseason would have on their bodies if they were somehow able to pull off spring football.
i don't know if it's political or not but it's interesting that the ivy league rests in a part of the country where cases are on the decline. it's not like the sun belt conference....
Seriously, why do you continue to inject politics into football threads? Do you like it when threads get locked because of your posts?
Do any of you have the slightest idea what would result from $50-60 million holes in a $120 million budget? Ivy League is concentrated in the area of the country where 5-6 states constitute about 50% of the deaths nationally. Throw out Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland and Pennsylvania and the Big Ten footprint is very low in fatalities.
Last edited:
I wasn't political. I was just noting the reason for the turmoil over the football season.
I'm not the reason threads get blocked. You talk politics on here as much, or more than anyone. Look in the mirror.
You said that the decision to move fall sports to the spring "is 100% political", as if that's a demonstrable fact.
Was that intended hyperbole on your part?
Isn't it just as demonstrable that the decision was at least in part, if not 100%, based on health policy?
So that tweet said nothing has been decided about athletics yet, but everyone here is assuming it means they (Rutgers) are just going to cancel? No chance of them still having sports while online only?
This is true, but those states also account for over 1/3 of the schools in our conference... if I've done my math correctly.
The financial ramifications are massive. It will be fascinating (not necessarily in a good way) to see how this affects the future landscape of college athletics.
Some college presidents have said they'll only play sports if kids are on campus. Which I actually think is asinine.
The NBA is putting teams in a bubble to finish their season. If I were a betting man, I'd say the NFL is going to do something very similar. It's just what it's going to take. So, kids on campus or not, if they don't want outbreaks, the players need to be taking online classes anyway and not mixing among the general student population if they want to play a season.
So I agree with the principle of having sports without the student body on campus because the players should be on lockdown either way. I've beaten this dead horse for months, and I know it's incredibly unpalatable to have the teams on their own little island for a multitude of reasons. But that's what it's going to take. Remember back in March when Duke (I think it was) announced it was going to skip the NCAA Tourney. It didn't get cancelled officially for a couple of days, but that was the death knell. If schools try to half-ass this at all, there's going to be an outbreak and the season will be over as soon as a Bama, Clemson, Michigan, Texas, or Florida, etc. shut it down.
It's my opinion. I thought that was a given, but I suppose I need to dumb it down for you. (j/k)
With the number and rate of deaths down everywhere, and the effects of even getting it very mild in the college age group, I don't see how it could be anything other than political, or maybe just unfounded fear.
I thought we were supposed to go by the date? You know, 'science'?
It's not obvious to you?
I don't deny how I feel politically, nor do I apologize for it. But, in this case, I'm data driven. And the data only shows increases in cases - not mortality. And the age group we're talking about has very little risk.
Newsflash: even with a vaccine, people will still get it and people will still die. Shall we just quit living?
The articles I'm reading indicate that your facts are not facts. They're cherry-picked pieces of data that at best are individual frames of a movie. Deaths are a lagging indicator to cases, and cases are up . . . way up. Some who are infected have mild effects, and others have drastic declines in health, and others have continuing adverse effects many months after first getting sick.
Dumb it down some more . . . your analysis is, um, lacking . . . .
I said the death rate was down. Are you saying that's not a fact?
"lagging indicator".... oh, that's right - the bogeyman is always right around the corner.
I was just kidding about dumbing it down before. I'm not now.
This post isn't for you, DANC, but is for the rest of the readers and posters here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/07/coronavirus-live-updates-us/
isn’t this really what is needed? Young and healthy people getting it and, hopefully, not having much trouble beating it?
Protect the most vulnerable among us the best that we can.
I know that here in Indiana ~45% of our deaths were in nursing homes. Another big percentage is 60+ with underlying health issues.
I didn’t think the goal was to get this thing to zero before we started living. But it seems like that’s where the target has been moved.
Zero cases by July - - or January, for that matter - - was never a goal, but no one expected a case total of 3 million at this point, a surge in new cases, and a strain on hospital systems in hot weather locales like Texas, Arizona and elsewhere. We're heading in the wrong direction.
Remember this was supposed to be the time of year when things quieted down before a "second wave" in the fall. That's why some colleges revised the academic calendar and decided to send students home at Thanksgiving into February.
I'm becoming more pessimistic about a college football season.
I’m not responding with college football in mind, necessarily. I’m just talking about living life. I would, however, like to watch my daughter play volleyball this fall and winter. CFB not returning would just be another crappy thing to deal with. A lost year watching my daughter would be tougher to take.
The estimates in March were incredibly high. California’s governor said 56% of their population would get it. So we can agree to disagree about where we thought we’d be. The experts haven’t been right about much so I have a healthy skepticism about what they say, report and project.
I say all of this as a mask wearer and proponent. I think Trump is a doofus and think Holcomb is doing a good job here.
**edited. Newsome said 56% not 80%
Last edited:
"And reports are that Big Ten might proceed without 3-4 schools. My money would be on Rutgers, Maryland, Illinois and Northwestern with Pennsylvania a long shot."
I'm not questioning this statement, but I have not seen anything reporting this. Can you tell me where this is coming from? The last info I could find was from early May when the general consensus was a season would be played with all 14 schools in tow.
I'm not questioning this statement, but I have not seen anything reporting this. Can you tell me where this is coming from? The last info I could find was from early May when the general consensus was a season would be played with all 14 schools in tow.
Lmao. I’m sure that’s what college administrators are looking at and thinking about. Talk about conspiracy theories. Goodness.
In Texas the hospitals only keep around 15% of the ICU vacant. They make their money off of ICU's so they want them used as much as possible. Hospitals will be full with only that much availability.
We were also told several times that when more testing was made available we would see-guess what, more cases. Not a surprise. The Arizona Governor called it the first wave in his state, too. It's a wait and see on the death increase. I hope they don't go up.
In addition, if you look at underlying data, the fatality rate for people under age 45 is practically zero. I find it interesting everybody is so focused on uptick in cases (indicating significant exposure and additional widespread testing) with the deaths consistently falling. Trends remain positive yet decisions are being made today for something months in advance based on limited potential hazard to the age group competing.
- Status
