RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,595
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jul 19, 2020 14:19:42 GMT -5
As usual, DFW HOYA, you present an impressive array of information that describes the situation of Georgetown football (and GU athletics more generally). What I find missing is a few key additional pieces of context without which one can't really make sense of why we are where we are. They most closely fit into your factor #10, "ethos and culture," but really they touch on all aspects of the role of sport at a university. Simply put, while hoyasaxa2003 believes that "(Georgetown) football, as currently constituted, is a huge embarrassment," in the eyes of the academy it is college football that, as currently constituted, is a huge embarrassment. It's an institution that many university leaders and faculty feel like they have to live with because of the money it brings in, but you don't have to spend very long in the halls of academia to hear it compared to a certain other 'peculiar institution' that many elites found distasteful but learned to live with. That comparison might strike many sports fans, of the sort who congregate on this board, as risible hyperbole on the part of Ivory Tower pinheads who know little about sports. But when the author of Friday Night Lights is making that argument... you start to recognize that these sorts of critiques aren't just some weird fringe belief, but rather that there is a pretty significant level of skepticism out there about the role of college football as it exists today in society. Even many people who are fans of the game and have some appreciation for its history, traditions, etc. nonetheless see big-time football as fundamentally a wealth transfer mechanism in which less affluent - and disproportionally black - young men subject themselves to extensive physical risk to generate revenue for more affluent - and disproportionately white - coaches, administrators, boosters, and institutions. That sort of a system runs headlong into Georgetown's self-conception of its "ethos and culture" - being a meatgrinder is pretty much the opposite of Cura Personalis. The culture of athlete misbehavioral and relative impunity that tends to follow big-time programs looms large here as well; even at the I-AA level, where the money involved is far less and there's not many people getting rich off of it, this culture poses intensifying institutional problems in the era of #MeToo. The James Madisons of the world are by no means exempt (see, e.g., here, here, and here. So Georgetown takes great pains to try to posture its program in such a way that it is not seen as engaging in that sort of an exploitative and culture-warping enterprise, while also trying to preserve some of the positives that have been mentioned (tradition, the diversity that players bring to the campus, the strong allegiance to each other and the school that recruited athletes tend to have, etc.). In attempting to thread this needle, it takes its cue from the Ivies and tries to model its program on theirs to the extent it can, given the far more limited resources it has to work with. The Ivy League is not opening its doors to any associate members, natch. For awhile there, we thought the Patriot League was a satisfactory home, comprised of institutions who shared our philosophy on these matters. But the other Patriots have been under some different kinds of institutional pressures than we have, and those pressures have pushed them in the opposite direction. At least, until Covid came along. What comes next is far less clear.
|
|
|
Post by hsaxon on Jul 19, 2020 20:46:44 GMT -5
For me, it's really a matter of dollars and cents. Generally speaking, football as a sport is more expensive to run than baseball, but it is true that Georgetown does football on the cheap, and the financial requirement is certainly lower than a major football team would be. There also seems to be extremely low support for football, except a small number of alumni. Game threads on HoyaTalk are often lucky to get 20 posts, and half or more of them are usually DFW/Admin providing updates. To be clear, if the university has the funds and desire to do it, then I'm fine. My bigger problem with football is that, institutionally, we cannot possibly even compete in a scholarship conference when we refuse to use scholarships. To me, there should at least be some hope of competing and succeeding, and that seems virtually nil at this point. On baseball, I will plead ignorance, but the fact that we have had so many seasons under .500 (which I think goes farther back than 2005) would seem to tell a similar story. I just do not know if there is a structural reason why we are so bad in baseball (like competing in a scholarship conference without scholarships), or if we are just bad. Sport support is more complicated than wins and loses. If it were, lacrosse would have never made it to the arrival of Dave Urick and soccer would have run out of gas before Keith Tabatznick. Georgetown tends to follow an approach similar to its peers. There are roughly 10 factors which come into play: 1. Quality of the student-athlete experience 2. History of the sport at the school 3. Potential for success (local, regional, national) 4. Quality of facilities 5. Investment required to excel 6. Title IX 7. Diversity 8. Ability to play a representative schedule 9. Alumni and donor support 10. The "ethos and culture" argument Relative to each sport, some thoughts. Baseball1. Baseball enjoys a good student athlete experience but Georgetown is aware that it's left the team short over the years. Baseball had its scholarships taken away in the 1970's, it lost its field in the 1990's, and the lack of staff support led to its major probation a decade ago. The kids like the program, and attrition is low. 2. This is the oldest sport at the school, but to be fair it's lacked any national standing since the 1920's. Its last winning season was in 1986, a function of non-scholarship play in a scholarship conference, and a chronic lack of depth in pitching, which is where scholarships are usually the most impactful. 3. Potential for success? The Big East will never be regular entrants to the CWS but it's a solid mid-major as far as conferences go. Creighton (and to a lesser extent, St. John's) takes baseball seriously but it could certainly compete. 4. Facilities. Playing in Bethesda hurts the program. No students in the last 20 years have probably seen them play. 5. Investment required to excel? Scholarships and a better long term home. Doesn't have to be on-campus but certainly nearer. 6. Title IX is balanced by softball. 7. College baseball is not diverse. Only 4.9% of athletes nationwide are at black. According to GUHoyas.com, there is one African-American player on the 35 man roster. 8. There are enough teams playing baseball in the East to make it work. 9. Alumni and donor support has really kicked up in recent years. 10. Baseball fits the "ethos and culture" argument, even if out of sight. Football1. Football has one of the strongest student-athlete experiences in large part due to Rob Sgarlata. He can't sell conference championships and playoffs so he sells "Four for 40" and a lifetime of personal and professional (Wall Street) contacts. 2. The second oldest sport (1874 or 1887, take your pick) with some bowl history, but the last 20 years has been poor: one winning season. There is an odd relationship with the Patriot League which feeds upon itself- the PL is a low-wattage, low-results league so Georgetown does not invest, then wonders why it has no results. 3. Potential for Success? First you must define success and GU has avoided that definition for years. Next, is the PL a support structure to be successful? I am losing faith in that argument. 4. Facilities: Going from an F- to a D with the Cooper Field updates but it's still below average from what it could be. 5. Investment? Could be scholarships but it doesn't have to be. Sgarlata can compete with the formula he has but the PL rules really, really work against him. With two PL rule changes (end the Ivy League Academic Index, allow redshirts) Georgetown could be a legitimate top 50-60 program. 6. Football isn't a comparable sport to any Title IX balance. 7. Football is the most diverse sport on campus. A total of 55 men of color played on the 2019 roster. 8. The "representative schedule" is a tricky one. Yes, there are plenty of opponents left but far fewer want to play Georgetown for what they perceive as a negative to their schedule and others won't touch GU over the bowl eligibility issue--Georgetown is the only PL team where a "guarantee" game won't count for a bowl (FYI, every other Patriot League team gets guarantee games. Absent COVID, Fordham was going to get $300K+ to play at Hawaii and Lafayette was going to play Navy this fall.) Even the Ivies are giving up on the Hoyas--there is only one Ivy home game on the public schedules until 2026. My two cents: Georgetown needs a new approach to scheduling that is going to be at odds to the kind of schools people "think" GU should play. 9. Donor support is strong, and having Peter Cooper's gift doesn't hurt. 10. Football fits Jack's "ethos and culture" argument, as long as there's no scholarships.
|
|
|
Post by hsaxon on Jul 19, 2020 20:48:24 GMT -5
Sport support is more complicated than wins and loses. If it were, lacrosse would have never made it to the arrival of Dave Urick and soccer would have run out of gas before Keith Tabatznick. Georgetown tends to follow an approach similar to its peers. There are roughly 10 factors which come into play: 1. Quality of the student-athlete experience 2. History of the sport at the school 3. Potential for success (local, regional, national) 4. Quality of facilities 5. Investment required to excel 6. Title IX 7. Diversity 8. Ability to play a representative schedule 9. Alumni and donor support 10. The "ethos and culture" argument Relative to each sport, some thoughts. Baseball1. Baseball enjoys a good student athlete experience but Georgetown is aware that it's left the team short over the years. Baseball had its scholarships taken away in the 1970's, it lost its field in the 1990's, and the lack of staff support led to its major probation a decade ago. The kids like the program, and attrition is low. 2. This is the oldest sport at the school, but to be fair it's lacked any national standing since the 1920's. Its last winning season was in 1986, a function of non-scholarship play in a scholarship conference, and a chronic lack of depth in pitching, which is where scholarships are usually the most impactful. 3. Potential for success? The Big East will never be regular entrants to the CWS but it's a solid mid-major as far as conferences go. Creighton (and to a lesser extent, St. John's) takes baseball seriously but it could certainly compete. 4. Facilities. Playing in Bethesda hurts the program. No students in the last 20 years have probably seen them play. 5. Investment required to excel? Scholarships and a better long term home. Doesn't have to be on-campus but certainly nearer. 6. Title IX is balanced by softball. 7. College baseball is not diverse. Only 4.9% of athletes nationwide are at black. According to GUHoyas.com, there is one African-American player on the 35 man roster. 8. There are enough teams playing baseball in the East to make it work. 9. Alumni and donor support has really kicked up in recent years. 10. Baseball fits the "ethos and culture" argument, even if out of sight. Football1. Football has one of the strongest student-athlete experiences in large part due to Rob Sgarlata. He can't sell conference championships and playoffs so he sells "Four for 40" and a lifetime of personal and professional (Wall Street) contacts. 2. The second oldest sport (1874 or 1887, take your pick) with some bowl history, but the last 20 years has been poor: one winning season. There is an odd relationship with the Patriot League which feeds upon itself- the PL is a low-wattage, low-results league so Georgetown does not invest, then wonders why it has no results. 3. Potential for Success? First you must define success and GU has avoided that definition for years. Next, is the PL a support structure to be successful? I am losing faith in that argument. 4. Facilities: Going from an F- to a D with the Cooper Field updates but it's still below average from what it could be. 5. Investment? Could be scholarships but it doesn't have to be. Sgarlata can compete with the formula he has but the PL rules really, really work against him. With two PL rule changes (end the Ivy League Academic Index, allow redshirts) Georgetown could be a legitimate top 50-60 program. 6. Football isn't a comparable sport to any Title IX balance. 7. Football is the most diverse sport on campus. A total of 55 men of color played on the 2019 roster. 8. The "representative schedule" is a tricky one. Yes, there are plenty of opponents left but far fewer want to play Georgetown for what they perceive as a negative to their schedule and others won't touch GU over the bowl eligibility issue--Georgetown is the only PL team where a "guarantee" game won't count for a bowl (FYI, every other Patriot League team gets guarantee games. Absent COVID, Fordham was going to get $300K+ to play at Hawaii and Lafayette was going to play Navy this fall.) Even the Ivies are giving up on the Hoyas--there is only one Ivy home game on the public schedules until 2026. My two cents: Georgetown needs a new approach to scheduling that is going to be at odds to the kind of schools people "think" GU should play. 9. Donor support is strong, and having Peter Cooper's gift doesn't hurt. 10. Football fits Jack's "ethos and culture" argument, as long as there's no scholarships.
|
|
sweetness
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 832
|
Post by sweetness on Jul 21, 2020 6:04:35 GMT -5
I'm seeing on twitter other teams getting together for workouts with their coaches (e.g. UCONN, Tx Tech). Are we anywhere close to that? Is it a DC issue that is preventing it or a university decision?
|
|
|
Post by 4aks on Jul 21, 2020 23:18:56 GMT -5
I'm seeing on twitter other teams getting together for workouts with their coaches (e.g. UCONN, Tx Tech). Are we anywhere close to that? Is it a DC issue that is preventing it or a university decision? I hope that activity is outdoors with PPE ... the coaches , and their families, are most at risk
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Jul 22, 2020 11:38:05 GMT -5
I'm seeing on twitter other teams getting together for workouts with their coaches (e.g. UCONN, Tx Tech). Are we anywhere close to that? Is it a DC issue that is preventing it or a university decision? I hope that activity is outdoors with PPE ... the coaches , and their families, are most at risk Fortunately our Coach should already have immunity!
|
|
|
Post by centercourt400s on Jul 28, 2020 13:53:33 GMT -5
Major League Baseball is barely back for three days and already they are dealing with a season threatening virus breakout. The teams and the league did tons of planning, applied a lot of dollars, acted in concert with each other and still they can't escape the larger issue of how prevalent the virus is in the US.
How is it going to work with 300+ Division 1 teams trying to implement school, conference and NCAA regulations in the midst of all the travel and close contact that college basketball requires?
Short of a widely available vaccine, is there any way this season is going to, or should, happen? I'm getting more skeptical by the day.
|
|
|
Post by wponds on Jul 28, 2020 14:34:22 GMT -5
Idk if this is feasible/fundable, but in a perfect world, I'd try to do this:
- Cancel all non-conference games - Give each conference their own bubble - Have all classes online (already a good chance of this happening) - Have tutors available on-site
If there's still no vaccine by the NCAA Tournament, then create another bubble for that. Take the necessary time off in between to make sure everyone is still testing negative
Again, not sure if they'll be able to pull this off, but it's hard to imagine sports happening successfully without the vaccine unless there's a bubble involved.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,315
|
Post by SDHoya on Jul 28, 2020 14:46:07 GMT -5
Idk if this is feasible/fundable, but in a perfect world, I'd try to do this: - Cancel all non-conference games - Give each conference their own bubble - Have all classes online (already a good chance of this happening) - Have tutors available on-site If there's still no vaccine by the NCAA Tournament, then create another bubble for that. Take the necessary time off in between to make sure everyone is still testing negative Again, not sure if they'll be able to pull this off, but it's hard to imagine sports happening successfully without the vaccine unless there's a bubble involved. This may be where it gets to. Not sure that some of the smaller conferences would be able (or would even want) to pull this off though.
|
|
|
Post by bicentennial on Jul 28, 2020 19:17:53 GMT -5
Not sure how anything happens until you close bars. Bars are the opposite of social distancing. Need to bail out bar owners and employees for at least a full year so they can reopen after the outbreak numbers are low but they will never be low while people mingle at bars!!!
|
|
Massholya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,939
|
Post by Massholya on Jul 28, 2020 21:42:05 GMT -5
Or stop playing football. Would be very surprised if any meaningful football is played this year at pro or college level. Having lineman line up a foot away from each other grunting and breathing heavily has to be one of the worst ideas in age of covid. Has to be far worse than hanging out in a bar. I would t want to play if I were a lineman.
|
|
|
Post by bicentennial on Jul 28, 2020 22:26:44 GMT -5
While I agree that linemen lining up across from each other is a very bad idea at least without masks, you cannot drink with a mask on and once your drink alcohol, you become less and less likely to put your mask back on. Also, if you have decided to go to a bar it is not to hang out with a small cluster of your closest friends. Going to a restaurant is different since you can Moreover kissing is one of the best ways to spread COVID which was part of why it was felt cases in Italy spread so fast. Most countries in Europe recommended no longer kissing on the cheeks which is a traditional greeting between close friends and family members as this was felt to be contributing to the rapid spread across many countries in Europe early in the pandemic. Sports will only be able to start up if we can get the percentage of positive tests very low and if we contact trace all the people who come in contact with the positive cases. Currently that is not happening in our country. Sorry, if this would be more appropriate in the COVID thread can move it but it is directly relevant to all sports seasons.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Jul 29, 2020 10:45:21 GMT -5
Idk if this is feasible/fundable, but in a perfect world, I'd try to do this: - Cancel all non-conference games - Give each conference their own bubble - Have all classes online (already a good chance of this happening) - Have tutors available on-site If there's still no vaccine by the NCAA Tournament, then create another bubble for that. Take the necessary time off in between to make sure everyone is still testing negative Again, not sure if they'll be able to pull this off, but it's hard to imagine sports happening successfully without the vaccine unless there's a bubble involved. That isn't college athletics, that's running a bunch of minor league teams, and prioritizing athletics over every other student in your University - which you are admitting is probably remote at that point. How does that handle Title IX concerns? Are you going to fund a bubble for women's college basketball?
|
|
|
Post by wponds on Jul 29, 2020 10:54:27 GMT -5
Idk if this is feasible/fundable, but in a perfect world, I'd try to do this: - Cancel all non-conference games - Give each conference their own bubble - Have all classes online (already a good chance of this happening) - Have tutors available on-site If there's still no vaccine by the NCAA Tournament, then create another bubble for that. Take the necessary time off in between to make sure everyone is still testing negative Again, not sure if they'll be able to pull this off, but it's hard to imagine sports happening successfully without the vaccine unless there's a bubble involved. That isn't college athletics, that's running a bunch of minor league teams, and prioritizing athletics over every other student in your University - which you are admitting is probably remote at that point. How does that handle Title IX concerns? Are you going to fund a bubble for women's college basketball? Yeah, agree with you on that, that's kinda what I meant when I said idk if it would be feasible. Not only would they need answers for the Title IX aspect, but also all the other winter/spring sports that would probably feel slighted by the NCAA only prioritizing MBB
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Jul 29, 2020 12:47:42 GMT -5
Looks like GU is going 100% virtual for the fall semester. Just saw this posted:
Dear Members of the Georgetown University Community: Over these past few weeks, we have been carefully monitoring the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on our Fall plans. I write to share with you the difficult decision that, based on current pandemic and public health conditions, we will be amending our plans for the Fall. Courses for all undergraduate and graduate students will begin in virtual mode. Due to the acceleration of the spread of the virus and increasing restrictions on interstate travel we cannot proceed with our original plans for returning to campus this fall. This was a very difficult decision—and one that I know will disappoint members of our community who have been eagerly anticipating a return to campus. In early July, we had announced our intention to bring approximately 2,000 undergraduate students, including the members of the first-year class, to our Main Campus. Today, we are revising this approach based on current pandemic conditions. We will not be able to bring to campus the members of the entering undergraduate class, the class of 2024, at this time. We plan to introduce in-person course elements as soon as health conditions permit. We will continue to monitor pandemic and public health conditions to determine when it may be possible to resume in-person courses and other in-person, on-campus activities. Specific guidance regarding a transition from all-virtual mode will be shared by academic leaders. Select activities—such as biomedical, life and physical sciences research—will continue to take place on-campus according to our established plans. Specific details will be shared by appropriate campus leaders. Since the emergence of the pandemic in mid-January, we have been preparing, tracking, and responding to possible impacts on our community. In the months since, we have been forced to adjust, as the pandemic has spread. As we have encountered difficult moments and faced many challenging decisions, we have remained steadfast in our deep commitment to our academic mission and to the health and safety of our community. Members of our community have demonstrated extraordinary compassion and resilience over this time—supporting the health of one another, our communities, and our families. We are now confronting another challenging moment, as the pandemic accelerates across our country. This past week, Mayor Bowser extended Washington, D.C.’s emergency declarations through October 9 and added new restrictions on travel into the District of Columbia—requiring quarantine for 14 days for travelers from designated “high risk areas.” Travelers from 27 states are currently under this restriction, including those from California, Texas, and Florida. These new D.C. restrictions reflect a growing awareness and concern about the accelerating spread of the virus in the United States and the speed at which COVID-19 test results can be delivered. These developments indicate a strain on our public health framework. In addition, the DMV—the District, Maryland, and Virginia—are designated as “high risk areas” by states throughout the country. In preparing for the Fall semester, we anticipated the possibility that a transition to a virtual mode might be required and have planned accordingly, with more than 1,600 of our faculty participating in summer programs and workshops to enhance virtual learning experiences. Events and co-curricular activities are also being adapted for students to succeed and thrive in a virtual environment. This decision impacts many aspects of our planning for students, faculty, and staff. We will be providing additional information later today, and in subsequent days, on the adjustments to our plan. Our centralized Fall 2020 website provides important information and includes frequently asked questions that we will continue to update as new information becomes available. I wish to offer my deep appreciation to each member of our community, as we work to adjust and respond in these changing and uncertain circumstances. This is a moment in which our compassion, our understanding, and our flexibility can demonstrate the depth of our care for one another and for the well-being of our community. Sincerely, John J. DeGioia
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Jul 29, 2020 13:48:35 GMT -5
Looks like GU is going 100% virtual for the fall semester. Just saw this posted: Dear Members of the Georgetown University Community: Over these past few weeks, we have been carefully monitoring the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on our Fall plans. I write to share with you the difficult decision that, based on current pandemic and public health conditions, we will be amending our plans for the Fall. Courses for all undergraduate and graduate students will begin in virtual mode. Due to the acceleration of the spread of the virus and increasing restrictions on interstate travel we cannot proceed with our original plans for returning to campus this fall. This was a very difficult decision—and one that I know will disappoint members of our community who have been eagerly anticipating a return to campus. In early July, we had announced our intention to bring approximately 2,000 undergraduate students, including the members of the first-year class, to our Main Campus. Today, we are revising this approach based on current pandemic conditions. We will not be able to bring to campus the members of the entering undergraduate class, the class of 2024, at this time. We plan to introduce in-person course elements as soon as health conditions permit. We will continue to monitor pandemic and public health conditions to determine when it may be possible to resume in-person courses and other in-person, on-campus activities. Specific guidance regarding a transition from all-virtual mode will be shared by academic leaders. Select activities—such as biomedical, life and physical sciences research—will continue to take place on-campus according to our established plans. Specific details will be shared by appropriate campus leaders. Since the emergence of the pandemic in mid-January, we have been preparing, tracking, and responding to possible impacts on our community. In the months since, we have been forced to adjust, as the pandemic has spread. As we have encountered difficult moments and faced many challenging decisions, we have remained steadfast in our deep commitment to our academic mission and to the health and safety of our community. Members of our community have demonstrated extraordinary compassion and resilience over this time—supporting the health of one another, our communities, and our families. We are now confronting another challenging moment, as the pandemic accelerates across our country. This past week, Mayor Bowser extended Washington, D.C.’s emergency declarations through October 9 and added new restrictions on travel into the District of Columbia—requiring quarantine for 14 days for travelers from designated “high risk areas.” Travelers from 27 states are currently under this restriction, including those from California, Texas, and Florida. These new D.C. restrictions reflect a growing awareness and concern about the accelerating spread of the virus in the United States and the speed at which COVID-19 test results can be delivered. These developments indicate a strain on our public health framework. In addition, the DMV—the District, Maryland, and Virginia—are designated as “high risk areas” by states throughout the country. In preparing for the Fall semester, we anticipated the possibility that a transition to a virtual mode might be required and have planned accordingly, with more than 1,600 of our faculty participating in summer programs and workshops to enhance virtual learning experiences. Events and co-curricular activities are also being adapted for students to succeed and thrive in a virtual environment. This decision impacts many aspects of our planning for students, faculty, and staff. We will be providing additional information later today, and in subsequent days, on the adjustments to our plan. Our centralized Fall 2020 website provides important information and includes frequently asked questions that we will continue to update as new information becomes available. I wish to offer my deep appreciation to each member of our community, as we work to adjust and respond in these changing and uncertain circumstances. This is a moment in which our compassion, our understanding, and our flexibility can demonstrate the depth of our care for one another and for the well-being of our community. Sincerely, John J. DeGioiaNow we wait to see if the BIG EAST Conference backs off its comments way back in the Spring that university athletic programs that don't have students return to campus in the fall won't be able/allowed to compete? I thought then that statement by Commissioner Val Ackerman was extremely premature. If anything this is a plus. General students not returning to campus creates a non manufactured bubble for the athletes increasing the odds of teams remaining COVID free.
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Jul 29, 2020 14:02:43 GMT -5
Virginia High School League pushes all sports back to December start. Moves football to February. Basketball runs from December thru February. So far the most progressive plan by any state regarding high school sports. I personally think everything should be pushed back to at least February.
What the NCAA is refusing to acknowledge (because Big 10, Big 12, & SEC conferences would lose their minds and probably try to play anyways because of the $$$$) is that college athletics need to push everything back to at least January/February and may have to go in the summer with some sports. Baseball and softball already conclude in June. Other sports can do the same for a year.
|
|
jpj
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 258
|
Post by jpj on Jul 29, 2020 22:48:05 GMT -5
Looks like GU is going 100% virtual for the fall semester. Just saw this posted: Dear Members of the Georgetown University Community: Over these past few weeks, we have been carefully monitoring the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on our Fall plans. I write to share with you the difficult decision that, based on current pandemic and public health conditions, we will be amending our plans for the Fall. Courses for all undergraduate and graduate students will begin in virtual mode. Due to the acceleration of the spread of the virus and increasing restrictions on interstate travel we cannot proceed with our original plans for returning to campus this fall. This was a very difficult decision—and one that I know will disappoint members of our community who have been eagerly anticipating a return to campus. In early July, we had announced our intention to bring approximately 2,000 undergraduate students, including the members of the first-year class, to our Main Campus. Today, we are revising this approach based on current pandemic conditions. We will not be able to bring to campus the members of the entering undergraduate class, the class of 2024, at this time. We plan to introduce in-person course elements as soon as health conditions permit. We will continue to monitor pandemic and public health conditions to determine when it may be possible to resume in-person courses and other in-person, on-campus activities. Specific guidance regarding a transition from all-virtual mode will be shared by academic leaders. Select activities—such as biomedical, life and physical sciences research—will continue to take place on-campus according to our established plans. Specific details will be shared by appropriate campus leaders. Since the emergence of the pandemic in mid-January, we have been preparing, tracking, and responding to possible impacts on our community. In the months since, we have been forced to adjust, as the pandemic has spread. As we have encountered difficult moments and faced many challenging decisions, we have remained steadfast in our deep commitment to our academic mission and to the health and safety of our community. Members of our community have demonstrated extraordinary compassion and resilience over this time—supporting the health of one another, our communities, and our families. We are now confronting another challenging moment, as the pandemic accelerates across our country. This past week, Mayor Bowser extended Washington, D.C.’s emergency declarations through October 9 and added new restrictions on travel into the District of Columbia—requiring quarantine for 14 days for travelers from designated “high risk areas.” Travelers from 27 states are currently under this restriction, including those from California, Texas, and Florida. These new D.C. restrictions reflect a growing awareness and concern about the accelerating spread of the virus in the United States and the speed at which COVID-19 test results can be delivered. These developments indicate a strain on our public health framework. In addition, the DMV—the District, Maryland, and Virginia—are designated as “high risk areas” by states throughout the country. In preparing for the Fall semester, we anticipated the possibility that a transition to a virtual mode might be required and have planned accordingly, with more than 1,600 of our faculty participating in summer programs and workshops to enhance virtual learning experiences. Events and co-curricular activities are also being adapted for students to succeed and thrive in a virtual environment. This decision impacts many aspects of our planning for students, faculty, and staff. We will be providing additional information later today, and in subsequent days, on the adjustments to our plan. Our centralized Fall 2020 website provides important information and includes frequently asked questions that we will continue to update as new information becomes available. I wish to offer my deep appreciation to each member of our community, as we work to adjust and respond in these changing and uncertain circumstances. This is a moment in which our compassion, our understanding, and our flexibility can demonstrate the depth of our care for one another and for the well-being of our community. Sincerely, John J. DeGioiaNow we wait to see if the BIG EAST Conference backs off its comments way back in the Spring that university athletic programs that don't have students return to campus in the fall won't be able/allowed to compete? I thought then that statement by Commissioner Val Ackerman was extremely premature. If anything this is a plus. General students not returning to campus creates a non manufactured bubble for the athletes increasing the odds of teams remaining COVID free.
|
|
jpj
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 258
|
Post by jpj on Jul 29, 2020 22:52:27 GMT -5
Now I am even more in favor of moving College Football to a March start date and play to the end of May
and move College Basketball to Jan start date and have 1 special summer of June Madness
assuming the virus is under control by then AND those in charge of the TV contracts agree
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,460
|
Post by DanMcQ on Aug 1, 2020 8:28:30 GMT -5
|
|