WWW.PANTHERNATION.COM
GO PANTHERS!
welcome

Welcome to the best UNI Panther forum on the net!

Become a PN Supporting Member! Get exclusive access to the Panther Den forum and more. Click here for info.

30-minute show exclusively highlighting UNI Athletics. Click here for info.

  • You need to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
  • To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the help page by clicking this link.
  • If you have any questions please use the Contact Us form.
This website is not affiliated with the University of Northern Iowa or the UNI Panther Athletic Program.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

B1G TEN in the Dome?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Blue42 View Post
    I agree it doesn't make sense to pay $25k+ to go to a small private school to play a sport in college.

    But a lot of kids do it. And if sports didn't exist a lot of the small privates in Iowa would take a big hit.
    I don't care if a kid goes to an "Iowa college" to play a sport, as long as they don't ask me (or the state) to pick up part of the tab. IMHO, Iowa has set itself up with two kinds of public schools, and we shouldn't be providing any support to the private schools, as we have a public choice that should fit almost any student's needs.

    Now don't get me wrong, I think paying 30k a year to play barely-better-than-HS volleyball is a silly choice, but go nuts if you're willing to pay the bill. I think it's a racket - I have a friend whose daughter plays on a very good HS softball team, and they have non-starters who are getting "offers" from private schools.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Newsbreaker View Post

      I don't care if a kid goes to an "Iowa college" to play a sport, as long as they don't ask me (or the state) to pick up part of the tab. IMHO, Iowa has set itself up with two kinds of public schools, and we shouldn't be providing any support to the private schools, as we have a public choice that should fit almost any student's needs.
      I get why the state started to provide those funds back in the days of the college aged baby boom, but its long time to stop that funding.

      For numerous reasons some predict that up to 50% of the colleges/universities won't survive this decade. Probably not a bad thing if the market is truly over saturated, as I believe. For example, I come from a community of less than 60,000 and they have 5 marketing as private colleges/universities plus one Community College. The state does not need to continue to prop up those institutions which are in direct competition with the state universities which are struggling on their own.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by run&blade View Post

        Why? High schools don’t test.

        What changes by spring? Are you assuming a virus is found and distributed to everybody by spring?

        there are going to be different rules for the power schools, the rest of DI, DII, DIII, and junior college. Otherwise some of these places might just as well hurry up and declare bankruptcy.

        DIII schools will not survive without sports. Central college i think has over 1/2 the student body playing a sport. No way they all go there without athletics.
        High school guidelines don't require this kind of testing. NCAA guidelines do. Each sport has their own requirements based on risk tiers. Football is considered high risk. The testing requirements are very, very high for football.

        By spring, testing improves. Rapid testing becomes more available (and cheaper). That's one of the things they were hoping would be in full swing by August. It wasn't.
        "...the Northern Iowa men's basketball team reached the ultimate highs before hitting a devastating low. Unexpected success, followed by unimaginable failure. And they owned it -- all of it -- for the world to see. Like men. Like leaders. Like champions -- in a way no tournament bracket could ever define."

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Born-a-Panther View Post

          High school guidelines don't require this kind of testing. NCAA guidelines do. Each sport has their own requirements based on risk tiers. Football is considered high risk. The testing requirements are very, very high for football.

          By spring, testing improves. Rapid testing becomes more available (and cheaper). That's one of the things they were hoping would be in full swing by August. It wasn't.
          IIRC to meet the very very very bottom testing requirements of the NCAA schools are/were looking at the low 7 figures based on tests available in June-August.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by clenz View Post

            IIRC to meet the very very very bottom testing requirements of the NCAA schools are/were looking at the low 7 figures based on tests available in June-August.
            Every player, coach, trainer, manager, etc. required to be tested every single week at around $100/test is what I had heard.
            "...the Northern Iowa men's basketball team reached the ultimate highs before hitting a devastating low. Unexpected success, followed by unimaginable failure. And they owned it -- all of it -- for the world to see. Like men. Like leaders. Like champions -- in a way no tournament bracket could ever define."

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Born-a-Panther View Post

              Every player, coach, trainer, manager, etc. required to be tested every single week at around $100/test is what I had heard.
              Rough math

              Call it 125-150 tests a week - plus extra if someone tests positive due to follow up tests and extra tests for tracing reasons
              150k a week

              4 weeks preseason, which seems standard for all the other leagues
              That's 500-600k for preseason tests alone

              Go with a shortened 8 game schedule - like schedule for Spring and the B10 is doing
              That's 1-1.2m for tests during the regular season

              Potential playoff/post season tests TBD. You have schools like UCA, SFA, etc. looking for a bowl waiver for an FCS school if they play enough games

              Long of it short, 2m for tests isn't out of the reality if that is true. Considering the shortfall UNI - and every other school like us is looking at - that's not a great cost to just eat.

              This isn't the big 10, where using Iowa's numbers for example, spending 2-3 million on tests means you go from a projected deficit of 90 million to a projected deficit of 50-60 million. That 2-3 million "earns" them 30-40 million.

              That 2-3 million for us doesn't "earn" us anything back. It just costs an extra 2-3 million on top of the current projected deficit.

              Comment


              • #22
                With the MWC announcing they are coming back here is their testing plan

                3 times per week.

                My numbers were with once a week testing. So triple that cost and call it 6 million for a 12 week season.

                And the MWC offices are covering costs for all 12 schools.

                The FCS never had a chance in hell to actually make it work. There's no TV money. There's no real additional exposure. There's not really any extra pay from buy games to cover that. Asking FCS schools to cover 6 million in testing - or a conference to cover 50-60 million in testing with no TV contracts is insane.

                There are some FCS schools playing, but they money they are losing from it isn't worth it in all reality.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I really really don't think the Mountain West Conference is covering $60 million in COVID testing for the football season.

                  I haven't done any research...but I really don't think that's happening.

                  150 tests a week x $100 a test = $15k not $150k.

                  Even at 3 times a week that's $45k a week.

                  $45k x 8 game weeks = $360k per team for the season.




                  ​​​​
                  Last edited by Blue42; 09-25-2020, 01:53 PM.
                  Winning is more fun than losing.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I think that a number of conferences are banking on the emergency approval of Abbott's covid test. It costs $5 and worked similar to a pregnancy test, other than it is saliva based.

                    Spit into a tube, results in 10 minutes. Scheduled for November approval

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Trapped in California View Post
                      I think that a number of conferences are banking on the emergency approval of Abbott's covid test.
                      not to be confused with Abbott and Costello's "Who's got Covid"

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Trapped in California View Post
                        I think that a number of conferences are banking on the emergency approval of Abbott's covid test. It costs $5 and worked similar to a pregnancy test, other than it is saliva based.

                        Spit into a tube, results in 10 minutes. Scheduled for November approval
                        If they could get access to a $5 test that would reduce testing cost for a football season to about $30k.

                        Hopefully it's also more accurate than PCR tests at 35+ Ct.
                        ​​​​​​
                        Winning is more fun than losing.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I would think that batch testing would be used. That would save a lot of $$.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X