College Football Season options
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/29088227/how-coronavirus-affect-college-football-season-2020
There are a few interesting points in among the "we can't make a plan" and "we don't know":
- six-eight weeks to get people in game shape to avoid injuries
- if it's not safe for fans, why is it safe for players?
- what do you do if someone tests positive?
- is college football still doable without fans?
Interesting article...but you have too much time on your hands not to be playing collegefootballrisk.com
You mistakenly typed the word "not" in your statement.
As to that last question, I think College Football, more than almost any other sport needs fans in the stadium to really work and I don't see that happening anytime in 2020.
Well, a survey by Sports Illustrated found that 99% of athletic directors think there will be a season this school year and 86% thought that it would start this calendar year. It sounds like they're pretty committed to making a season happen if it is at all feasible.
I don't really have a strong opinion either way. But I wouldn't put a lot of stock into what AD's say at this point when polled for an article. If you polled school presidents and asked will there be in-person classes in the fall I'm guessing the answer would overwhelmingly be "we don't have enough information at this point to say yes or no." So that's the appropriate answer for the question of whether there will be college football as well. No college football season is an option that AD's aren't willing to consider at this point because it will have such a negative impact on their budgets and hiring/retention decisions and they will do whatever it takes to plan for any sort of season at this point regardless of how likely/unlikely it is.
Edit: My comment applies mostly to power 5 schools who make significant money off football and drive the decision making for the sport. I'm curious as to what MAC teams who struggle to turn a profit on football would think about the decision. There was a point made in the article where shortening the season to eliminate non-conference games will be much worse for schools who barely break even and use the payouts from non conference games to finance their seasons. Would they want to play if they can't clear a few million in the non-conference? Would smaller conferences choose not to play this year if the non-conference schedule is eliminated?
Yes, ADs are going to be forced to follow the lead of their schools, for one, and many have not even decided if they'll physically reconvene.
The question that looms large among those posted in the OP involves what happens when players are ID'd as sick. This could be a very small number. But then you're going to send players out to sweat and bang and poke one another in the eyes at the bottom of piles of bodies at the line of scrimmage? If that is my kid?
So basically the guys whose revenue is almost completely dependent on playing football think we're going to play football. That is the most shocking thing ever said absolutely no one.
If the ADs really want to prove the point that football players in college are simply unpaid professionals then make them play football (the ultimate non-social distancing game) while it's deemed too dangerous for them to attend classes in person.
This is the key point, I think. The decision is ultimately not going to be made by athletic directors or football coaches, but by University presidents, boards of regents/trustees, and even governors of states.
If a university isn't going to have in-person classes in the fall, it will be very difficult for them to justify having a football team without appearing to be enormous hypocrites.
For the sake of the players, the games should be played if at all possible. Logistically, in-person classes and playing the games are not linked. Fans are a side show that is completely irrelevant to the playing of any game. I would love to have the games be played without fans-from my PE major, philosophical POV.
Reduce attendance to 1/4 capacity...every other row with every other seat unoccupied-mask required. (MSU attendance would likely double.) BYO water-no concessions.
April 30th, 2020 at 10:31 AM ^
“For the sake of the players, the games should be played if at all possible”
So you’re saying it’s in the best interests of the players to engage in a physical activity that might be one of the most effective ways of transmitting a potentially deadly disease to a large number of people very quickly.
April 30th, 2020 at 11:33 AM ^
their body, their choice, right? there is no way to prevent the spread of the virus, only slow it down. if you are worried about it, which is perfectly understandable, maybe don't hang around football teams - and i don't mean that snarkily (that's a word, right?), i mean that as a genuine suggestion.
April 30th, 2020 at 10:17 PM ^
So you're putting it on the players to "choose" whether to play? Jesus.
April 30th, 2020 at 11:43 AM ^
I'll translate it for you Don.
"I really, REALLY want to watch football this fall. I mean I really need it. So if a bunch of players happen to get sick, or even die, it's an acceptable risk as long as I get to watch football.
Because it's important to me to watch it."
April 30th, 2020 at 12:04 PM ^
I think about .1% of people in the country care if there is college football again, at all. You could not find a bigger college football fan than me 2 months ago and I don’t care if it ever comes back. What I would like is reasonable and reasonably safe civic, developmental, and recreational opportunities for children to be put in place, and for a real tangible plan to be put in place for the resumption of in-person education as is happening in other countries. College football, pro football, pro sports..... whatever. That is so far down the list it does not even register.
Frankly I am pessimistic. What happens when football teams are part of a campus that has classes online? It's going to happen and it's going to happen to major colleges. On the smaller level, Cal State Fullerton (AKA Cal State Disneyland) is starting the semester online. How do they bring their football team in and all other students are online (granted from my experience I believe this is a big commuter college).
On a bigger scale, MSU (and Wayne State) is planning to be online while U-M is "hopeful" to be be back:
For Michigan State University and Wayne State University, that likely means online classes, their presidents said Thursday, April 23 during a tele-town hall meeting. But University of Michigan President Mark Schlissel remains hopeful of having in-person classes, while taking advice from public health officials.
I believe if students are not on campus, there will be no football. And for football to take place, all teams must be able to play.
https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2020/04/michigan-state-wayne-state-planning-for-online-fall-classes-university-of-michigan-still-hopeful-to-be-back.html
And? Did they ask the athletes? Did they ask the presidents of these universities? ADs gotta AD—they are PR business people, not medical experts or the lead decision-makers at their universities. OSU’s leaders have espoused doubts, so all of this projection is just that. My college has all but stated the guarantee for online through the fall.
ADs have a financial interest in saying so. And frankly many or most ADs are unscrupulous buffoons.
April 29th, 2020 at 11:09 PM ^
I think they both need and want to try because football is what supports all other sports. If schools don’t make money from football this year how will they be able to sustain an athletic department.
I’m not sure they can safely start one this fall. We are only 4 months away and the players have been unable to do anything the last couple of months. I heard a DI head strength coach say the players need at least 9 weeks to get their bodies physically ready to safely play a season so they need to try to factor that in before a season can start. I don’t know I just don’t see it happening
Fear monger. What do you base this statement on? If no football, no university sports for years
It is not fear mongering to be logical and outline an objectively “pessimistic” outtake. Those of us in higher education are pretty much certain we will be be online in the fall due to the inability to logistically house, separate, or test students. And none of them ask us faculty how we feel—and the loads I know from all over the nation are all pretty cautious.
So, a negative outcome probability is not fear mongering—if one cannot handle this likely outcome, and it makes them afraid, that is one the one, not the person who stated their view of where we will be. I mean, if one says don’t drink bleach because you will likely die—is Johnny Maga just gonna say, “stop fear mongering” and then survive when he drinks a cup of bleach?
Of course it will be weird without fans, but football absolutely "works" without fans. There's no way in hell they're going to cancel a season because fans can't attend.
I would not be surprised if the NFL plays. Possibly without fans. Players are at minimal risk. It would be interesting to hear what the players view is and what they are being told. Some of the coaches might fit the at risk profile.
TV contracts would pay out and ratings would be huge. There is so much money in it I’m sure a plan is being discussed.
All bets are off when it comes to college with student athletes, parents, and administrators.
Every single human is at risk. They may be low risk, but some of these dudes have autoimmune diseases and asthmatic histories that put them in higher risk categories.
There has to be a highly effective therapy by mid-summer that is “certain” to work. Or, there has to be serious regimen of testing and isolation amongst players from even their families and the rest of us for them to not get it. Otherwise, the league will put itself up for possible litigation by the one player who may get seriously sick—or even die.
I read this morning about yet another possible vaccine being trialed between Germany and US. There was the most optimistic quote from the guy in charge saying they hoped to have a vaccine available in the millions by September. God, that’s what we all want. Yet, that seems to be someone very positive in the midst of many, many other experts saying 12-18 months is needed. Of course, they should be severely cautious with time projections to make sure they get it right and don’t cause outrage, but so too should the optimist stop projecting that simply being positive is going to change scientific method’s inanimate apathy at projections.
Great Britain has a vaccine that is in human testing now. They are also optimistic about having it ready to go by September. would be wonderful on many levels beside football
My crush: (sees me sitting outside a therapist office) Oh, what are you doing here?
Me: My mother is making see a therapist.
My crush: Oh, that sounds awful. For what reason?
Me: My mother caught me masterbating.
My crush: Oh, well I-
Me: I was masterbating to pictures of you.
My crush: ...
is that yet another reference to Shea?
It's a Seinfeld reference.
I think we as college football fans are now in the "Bargaining" stage of DABDA regarding season cancellation.
As is the general theme of most of the articles, nobody knows yet.
I’m on the optimistic side because it costs me nothing to be optimistic. Also, UGA announced today that they are gradually opening back up this summer with a plan of full on campus learning this fall. I would think some schools and their football programs will be ready to go before others.
If it isn't safe for college students to go on campus why is it safe for college student-athletes? If the NCAA is going to continue to hold up the STUDENT part of student-athlete as a means to not pay the players then there is no way they can put them at more risk to COVID than the average college student.
For what it's worth, Iowa is still planning on students being back on campus for the Fall Term
I believe Pudue is planning on having classes on campus as well. Who knows if that will come to pass, but even if it does, what are the chances that every Big Ten school will be having regular classes at the beginning of Fall Semester?
Also, how many weeks of practice would be needed before the games can safely resume? There's also the whole question of bowl games and a national championship, if the season doesn't start until mid October or later.
April 30th, 2020 at 12:32 AM ^
Can we play the season and skip the OSU game? That would be more fun.
It's a pretty good summary of where we're at.
I think it's just going to come down to when college students are able to return to campus. If it's this fall, I think there will be a season starting sometime this fall. If it's the next semester, it sounds like they're determined to get a season in and they will find a way to make it work. If students don't return to college campuses for the fall or winter semester, then of course there will not be a season.
Obviously, as a huge Michigan fan, I'd be thrilled if we could have any type of season this school year and I definitely hope that it happens. Any season is better than no season.
The only way college sports are played in 2020 is with signed waivers from all participating athletes, coaches and support staff.
It’s inevitable that someone at some point will test positive. Since the risk cannot be precluded, the risk takers would have to sign away their rights to sue at a later date.
- six-eight weeks to get people in game shape to avoid injuries
Yep. I do think that if there is a season, it will be one with only conference games, a 8-9 game season that runs October & November. That will be unique, but I'm fine with it.
- if it's not safe for fans, why is it safe for players?
Interestingly, Denmark is allowing gatherings up to 500 beginning in June. One could have a football game with 500 or less people. As for fans, though, even Michigan State games in October rain-storms get at least 500 (just barely). :-)
- what do you do if someone tests positive?
I would argue nothing. The player will either recover (very very very likely) or he'll die (very very very unlikely). That's what will happen. But I think we need to come to terms that a goal of "nobody ever gets infected" is impossible.
- is college football still doable without fans?
In the long-term, no, In the short-term, I think we can do it for 1 year if necessary.
If someone dies, their will be a massive payout by the university and the NCAA. You speak of a human life as if it is a business decision.
Your assertion that only one person would get infected is overlooking all of the data and the virulence of C19. It is highly contagious—so much so that a plethora of us have essentially wished we hoped the sickness we had in December or January or early February was Covid and that we beat it.
Citing a low risk statistic doesn’t actually provide immunity or guarantee no health risks to the young and talented. How many college football players have died due to unseen heart issues in just the last few years?
Lastly, one or two years without football would be very sad, but football would come back. Why is this the emotional sticking point for those feel like it is coming back this fall? Isn’t this a fearful reaction—a slippery slope that “if not now, never”? Yeah, it is. These overreactions to caution are like the worst melodrama ever: Dawson Creek meets Days of Our Lives meets Dallas.
Who knows, maybe there would be some programs that shuttered and then that would make for more parity? If, if, if.
The one thing is sure—“so what” responses in connection to a hypothetical “one dead athlete” is fucking sociopathic and selfish.
But it IS a business decision.
I get it, I'm calculate too much, I calculate instead of emote. Even my own dear Mom has said that to me. But it IS a business decision.
Any public or private university:
1. Is going to be considerably less viable economically the longer and longer they have to go with an on-line learning model (vs. on-campus students).
2. Isn't going to want to open up to tens of thousands of students being on-campus if they face a threat of being sued should any one of them get CoronaVirus.
I truly think higher education leaders are eventually come to the same calculation as me (call it sociopathic or selfish if you want): we're opening our doors again, but we're not doing it without a degree of liability protection, and the risk inherent in being on-campus is on you, not us.
Let's be more specific. Assume there is no vaccine or effective treatment. If a player tests positive after game one, that player and everyone they came in contact with will have to quarantined for two weeks. That's the entire team, plus the entire opposing team, plus the refs and support staff for both teams.
Do those teams now forfeit their next two games? Does the season just stop?
As someone who lives in Seattle and has been waiting years for UM at UW in perfect weather over Labor Day, it would suck for it to be postponed or cancelled, but I'm already resigned to that, and it's almost certainly the right call anyway.
I can see how you can make the case it's safer for players than fans (younger, you can bubble them off in a separate dorm, etc.), but the problem is when you bring coaches, referees, etc. into the picture, many of whom may be in their 60's/70's. Is Alabama gonna take the chance that Saban (age 68) won't get it and he'll be ok?
Dumb to say that the kids will be ok if they get it, and can't do anything to minimize risk. Of course they likely will be fine themselves, except players tend to come into contact with a whole lot of other people, including their family, let alone other students who may have disabilities or higher-risk factors.
Also, what happens if some states/schools open up to students and allow sports, and others don't? What happens if Washington is shut down and doesn't allow their students to practice/play and Michigan opens up? I can't see all 50 states being in the same place by early July or early this Fall, and just can't have a season where some schools play more games than others.
Why can’t some schools play more games than others? It’s ENTERTAINMENT for gosh sakes. And who says there has to be bowl games or playoffs? Most teams participate in neither and they still compete.
I would be interested to hear how the PLAYERS feel about missing the season. Probably not good. But who knows!
I’m betting there will be some college football this fall.
Going have to figure out balance with everything in future. What and what that is I'm not sure.
Seems odd now that we treat regular flu where if you got it and feel fine you don't tell anyone and you play. If you're sick with flu though you sit out no so much for others sake but cause you don't feel up to it.
Wonder if will ever get to that with this, likely not.
I have no idea about this but does regular flu have asymptomatic cases and if so is it at same levels as covid or is it less? If not then you wonder what death rates are for younger people if they have lots of asymptomatic cases with covid. So hard to tell now with the crappy numbers and testing
I think there will be games this year.
We might not get to go watch them but they will play.
90% of universities entire athletic budgets come from football. They'll play.
If not there will be entire athletic departments closing.
And spare me the "People could die and it could be your parent" crap. My parents are as likely to get in a car accident and die on the way home as they are to get corona.
Hyperbole is driving me nuts.
This arguement keeps getting repeated and nauseam.
On one side are the people trained in medical science who possess actual clinical knowledge and education. That group says "no football this fall, too dangerous for players and certainly for fans. No way it's happening."
On the other side are people who absolutely LOVE football but unfortunately possess no clinical education or medical training who claim "there absolutely will be football because I love football so there will be football. Absolutely. Because I love it."
I'm hoping the clinicians win this debate.
What if no vaccine for 3 years just curious what your thoughts are with what to do with college football those seasons
what about the players, and by that i mean, if you took a poll of the players i bet about 98% would say 'play!' i know my college football son is chomping at the bit to play and i'd let him if/when his school gets back in session. the next son is the same, but for his senior year and getting recruited. they know the risks, realize that they are almost certainly going to get it and not have any adverse effects, but will have adverse effects of missing the few seasons of football they are ever likely to be able to play.
April 30th, 2020 at 12:05 AM ^
I mean every statistical model says no more than 80-100 players infected which means only 5 or so would die so absolutely play.
Because I want to watch football so 5 or so deaths is acceptable given how much I want to watch football.
Not true. This pediatric oncology nurse understands the dynamics in play quite well. I believe that by mid to late summer there will be enough "well-tested" knowledge available to play the games at a very safe level-for the participants. There will likely be an "Insta-test" to check players within hours of game-time. If my "advancement" predictions are not available then I would relent.
April 29th, 2020 at 10:45 PM ^
- Players should be in game shape year round. If there are any players on our team who are not maintaining their conditioning right now, they'll be hard pressed to find reps come game time.
- It's safe for players because they're younger and far healthier than the average fan. We know for a fact that the virus mortality rate is tiny for people like them.
- Quarantine that player and continue as normal otherwise. Players transferring the virus amongst themselves is not a huge concern because they are at very low risk of falling seriously ill. Statistically speaking given the nationwide infection rates, I'd expect most teams to already have at least one player who has contracted the virus. If having one player with the virus is a non-starter for sports, then sports will *never* resume because this virus is likely never going away.
- Yes, the vast majority of athletic competition in the US is played without fans.
April 30th, 2020 at 12:38 AM ^
Unless there's a cure or a vaccine by fall, the only way this happens is if games are played with no fans and the entire football infrastructure (players, coaches etc...) is secluded and does not come into contact with others (e.g. other students, professors). The risk is not so much the players but the coaches, sideline reporters, older people the players come into contact with. You can't social distance that type of interaction.
So that means UM would have to accept online classes for the players most likely. Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Cal, UVA, UNC would have to accept that too. Even within conferences, some schools in harder hit areas may be more reluctant than others. For example, Rutgers is in the thick of the epicenter. Northwestern and Minnesota (also other P5 schools like USC, UCLA, BC, Miami) are also in large metro areas. UM and Maryland (and a lot of other P5 schools) are near large metro areas as well. They may not have the same view as Iowa or Purdue.
I can't see all P5 schools being aligned on a common strategy.