As an exclusive offer, JFQ Lending will cover any appraisal costs AND add an additional $500 credit for all members of TheWolfpacker.com!
Please email hclaussen@jfqlending.com or shoot NC State alum Hunter Claussen a private message (@WolfPackMortgageGuy). You can check out their website JFQLending.com as well.
•••
The ACC is moving forward for a football season this fall, but it is not a given that the Pack will be kicking off Sept. 12 at Virginia Tech or that any of its ACC brethren will, either. The truth is that the next 2-3 weeks will be crucial to having a chance to play football in the fall.
We said last week the odds of a football season are 50-50, and that's still that case. Last week we suggested that might be a generous read of the odds, but this week it feels a tad conservative.
As we noted last week, we believe the ACC’s big litmus test has been and will continue to be how well the acclimation period of the repopulation of campuses go (and on Friday UNC announced two clusters that had formed at two separate dorms on campus). Hence the case numbers/testing results during the final week of August are going to be crucial.
Our friends at Warchant.com have noted that there is still considerable chatter in the ACC that Boston College and Syracuse in particular are hesitant about moving forward, and that Pittsburgh has been on the fence although for now appear content with continuing cautiously.
There is even some speculation that BC and Syracuse could opt out of the season before it begins. It’s worth noting that Syracuse players as a team opted out of practicing at the start of preseason camp until getting more questions answered, and then Friday came reports that many players were opting out of the season.
As for the recent myocarditis complications that both the Pac-12 and Big Ten have cited, from what we have gathered the ACC medical advisory board has been in front of that issue since early-summer. Each player is required to pass a cardiac exam if he tests positive for COVID-19.
We have reached out to sources to see if the Big Ten and Pac-12 had similar systems in place, but it’s worth noting that it appears the Big 12 recently added cardiac exams to part of its protocol. It also seems to us that while myocarditis has become a serious and trendy topic of medical conversation, other overarching factors probably played a more significant role.
The likely biggest hurdle to a season this fall will be the ability to test, and the expectation is that the league will mandate three tests a week for teams soon. That was an apparent major issue for the Pac-12 in particular.
Two things we would not be surprised to see happening in the near-future:
• The ACC moves to a stricter mandated testing schedule going into the season and on game week. For now, schools are required to test biweekly in camp and then weekly during season. The chatter we see is that it will be boost to multiple times a week if/when games start. The SEC is planning to do two tests a week, the Big 12 three.
• A reconsideration of the non-conference game. There was a report that Boston College is preferring not to schedule the game it recently lost. There could be a push to be uniform with the other Power Five leagues in starting on Sept. 26 and dropping the non-conference game as a result.
•••
Obviously the college football world was rocked on Tuesday by the decisions of the Pac-12 and Big Ten. Everyone seems to acknowledge that the Pac-12 was running into headwinds on a variety of issues, most significantly testing but elsewhere, that made their season logistically very difficult even before getting into the medical debate about playing.
There is almost a sense that the Pac-12 was probably never going to play this fall, but perhaps it was waiting to find a partner. You may recall it did not take the Pac-12 long, a matter of days if that, to announce it was going to a conference-only schedule after the Big Ten went a bit rouge among the Power Five leagues in announcing its plans before others.
Ultimately the Pac-12 was probably always going to opt out of a fall football season, and if reports are accurate despite the posturing is very unlikely to do a spring slate as well. However, the Pac-12 scored points for being transparent publicly about football (although its announcement on basketball being postponed till January was surprising).
The Big Ten has left a lot of anger in its wake, and we found this insider breakdown of how things went down from TheWolverine.com interesting:
Big Ten schools had been in favor of trying to play the season by a 9-5 tally not long ago. That quickly moved to a pair of 7-7 temperature takes, with Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Minnesota, Illinois, Rutgers and Maryland casting the no votes.
In the end, the lone holdout schools insisting on playing the fall season were Iowa and Nebraska. Even they relented at the VERY end, but that was just for show and to make it unanimous, according to our source. Those schools enjoyed the support of Ohio State, Penn State and Wisconsin for part of Sunday night into Monday. Then came the time for official votes to be cast.
Wisconsin proved the first to cave. Ohio State and Penn State followed, after they could not persuade anyone to join them.
One aspect became clear, from insiders choosing to talk. The conference didn't expect the pushback and negative feedback received later in the process. Coaches and players speaking out the way they did impacted what was taking place — just not enough.
Here, as noted by one insider, is where it gets interesting. Ohio State pushed the idea of a spring season. Schools expressing strong interest included Penn State, Michigan, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Maryland. That cadre of competitors wasn't enough to make the conference announce a plan to pursue the notion in earnest. "Exploring" the idea was as far as anyone would go.
In reality, the others see too many obstacles. Some leaders apparently don't want to spend that much time on athletics. Others were "clearly irritated" by the daunting task of rearranging spring spots schedules, and then playing those same sports again in the fall. Some feel it sends the wrong message.
Obviously for football in particular, there are a host of other issues — clashes with the NFL schedule, players pursuing pro careers, little recovery time between seasons, etc. In short, don't expect a spring campaign to magically come about, unless a lot of minds are changed.
Then things really heated up. They turned to a "where in the hell is the leadership from the NCAA" sort of tenor. Passionate discussions ensued, and eight schools, according to this insider, would not mind terminating their league's long-standing relationship with the NCAA, sooner rather than later: Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois and Minnesota. Others wanted to hear about a transition plan before entertaining the idea.
Maryland, Indiana and Purdue were on the fence about such a notion, but they're the next three that could be persuaded to leave the present system if "a viable option" were presented. That would make the tally 11-3 for ending the present relationship.
Just heated talk, after obvious disappointment? Maybe. There's no question, though, that Big Ten schools felt set adrift by the NCAA's lack of top-down oversight.
Please email hclaussen@jfqlending.com or shoot NC State alum Hunter Claussen a private message (@WolfPackMortgageGuy). You can check out their website JFQLending.com as well.
•••
The ACC is moving forward for a football season this fall, but it is not a given that the Pack will be kicking off Sept. 12 at Virginia Tech or that any of its ACC brethren will, either. The truth is that the next 2-3 weeks will be crucial to having a chance to play football in the fall.
We said last week the odds of a football season are 50-50, and that's still that case. Last week we suggested that might be a generous read of the odds, but this week it feels a tad conservative.
As we noted last week, we believe the ACC’s big litmus test has been and will continue to be how well the acclimation period of the repopulation of campuses go (and on Friday UNC announced two clusters that had formed at two separate dorms on campus). Hence the case numbers/testing results during the final week of August are going to be crucial.
Our friends at Warchant.com have noted that there is still considerable chatter in the ACC that Boston College and Syracuse in particular are hesitant about moving forward, and that Pittsburgh has been on the fence although for now appear content with continuing cautiously.
There is even some speculation that BC and Syracuse could opt out of the season before it begins. It’s worth noting that Syracuse players as a team opted out of practicing at the start of preseason camp until getting more questions answered, and then Friday came reports that many players were opting out of the season.
As for the recent myocarditis complications that both the Pac-12 and Big Ten have cited, from what we have gathered the ACC medical advisory board has been in front of that issue since early-summer. Each player is required to pass a cardiac exam if he tests positive for COVID-19.
We have reached out to sources to see if the Big Ten and Pac-12 had similar systems in place, but it’s worth noting that it appears the Big 12 recently added cardiac exams to part of its protocol. It also seems to us that while myocarditis has become a serious and trendy topic of medical conversation, other overarching factors probably played a more significant role.
The likely biggest hurdle to a season this fall will be the ability to test, and the expectation is that the league will mandate three tests a week for teams soon. That was an apparent major issue for the Pac-12 in particular.
Two things we would not be surprised to see happening in the near-future:
• The ACC moves to a stricter mandated testing schedule going into the season and on game week. For now, schools are required to test biweekly in camp and then weekly during season. The chatter we see is that it will be boost to multiple times a week if/when games start. The SEC is planning to do two tests a week, the Big 12 three.
• A reconsideration of the non-conference game. There was a report that Boston College is preferring not to schedule the game it recently lost. There could be a push to be uniform with the other Power Five leagues in starting on Sept. 26 and dropping the non-conference game as a result.
•••
Obviously the college football world was rocked on Tuesday by the decisions of the Pac-12 and Big Ten. Everyone seems to acknowledge that the Pac-12 was running into headwinds on a variety of issues, most significantly testing but elsewhere, that made their season logistically very difficult even before getting into the medical debate about playing.
There is almost a sense that the Pac-12 was probably never going to play this fall, but perhaps it was waiting to find a partner. You may recall it did not take the Pac-12 long, a matter of days if that, to announce it was going to a conference-only schedule after the Big Ten went a bit rouge among the Power Five leagues in announcing its plans before others.
Ultimately the Pac-12 was probably always going to opt out of a fall football season, and if reports are accurate despite the posturing is very unlikely to do a spring slate as well. However, the Pac-12 scored points for being transparent publicly about football (although its announcement on basketball being postponed till January was surprising).
The Big Ten has left a lot of anger in its wake, and we found this insider breakdown of how things went down from TheWolverine.com interesting:
Big Ten schools had been in favor of trying to play the season by a 9-5 tally not long ago. That quickly moved to a pair of 7-7 temperature takes, with Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Minnesota, Illinois, Rutgers and Maryland casting the no votes.
In the end, the lone holdout schools insisting on playing the fall season were Iowa and Nebraska. Even they relented at the VERY end, but that was just for show and to make it unanimous, according to our source. Those schools enjoyed the support of Ohio State, Penn State and Wisconsin for part of Sunday night into Monday. Then came the time for official votes to be cast.
Wisconsin proved the first to cave. Ohio State and Penn State followed, after they could not persuade anyone to join them.
One aspect became clear, from insiders choosing to talk. The conference didn't expect the pushback and negative feedback received later in the process. Coaches and players speaking out the way they did impacted what was taking place — just not enough.
Here, as noted by one insider, is where it gets interesting. Ohio State pushed the idea of a spring season. Schools expressing strong interest included Penn State, Michigan, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Maryland. That cadre of competitors wasn't enough to make the conference announce a plan to pursue the notion in earnest. "Exploring" the idea was as far as anyone would go.
In reality, the others see too many obstacles. Some leaders apparently don't want to spend that much time on athletics. Others were "clearly irritated" by the daunting task of rearranging spring spots schedules, and then playing those same sports again in the fall. Some feel it sends the wrong message.
Obviously for football in particular, there are a host of other issues — clashes with the NFL schedule, players pursuing pro careers, little recovery time between seasons, etc. In short, don't expect a spring campaign to magically come about, unless a lot of minds are changed.
Then things really heated up. They turned to a "where in the hell is the leadership from the NCAA" sort of tenor. Passionate discussions ensued, and eight schools, according to this insider, would not mind terminating their league's long-standing relationship with the NCAA, sooner rather than later: Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois and Minnesota. Others wanted to hear about a transition plan before entertaining the idea.
Maryland, Indiana and Purdue were on the fence about such a notion, but they're the next three that could be persuaded to leave the present system if "a viable option" were presented. That would make the tally 11-3 for ending the present relationship.
Just heated talk, after obvious disappointment? Maybe. There's no question, though, that Big Ten schools felt set adrift by the NCAA's lack of top-down oversight.
