[Maple Leaf]

Assuming that there is no college football this year and the NCAA grants another year of eligibility to all players and increase the allowable maximum number to scholarships then these 5th year and 6th year seniors will have some decisions to make.

1. If there is no scholarship money available for this added year of eligibility how many move on to the phase of their life?
   
2. If there is scholarship money available for this added year of eligibility how many stay and how many move on?
   
3. What impact will this have on de-commits for 2021 class?
   
4. What impact will this have on those seeking to transfer?  Would all transfer be immediately eligible to play in 2021 even if they have not graduated?
   
5. Would those programs which historically graduate a higher than average number of players benefit in the area of player retention?
   
6. Would the cancelling of the 2020 college football season cause potential recruits look more seriously at the academics aspect of attending a given university?
   One potential positive aspect of no football this year might allow those individuals who have battled injuries in the past to more fully recover.Would Stanford be in a better position to be less impacted that other programs; more existing players sticking around, more high school kids showing real interest/academic commitment?

[Maple Leaf]

Assuming that there is no college football this year and the NCAA grants another year of eligibility to all players and increase the allowable maximum number to scholarships then these 5th year and 6th year seniors will have some decisions to make.

1. If there is no scholarship money available for this added year of eligibility how many move on to the phase of their life?
   
2. If there is scholarship money available for this added year of eligibility how many stay and how many move on?
   
3. What impact will this have on de-commits for 2021 class?
   
4. What impact will this have on those seeking to transfer?  Would all transfer be immediately eligible to play in 2021 even if they have not graduated?
   
5. Would those programs which historically graduate a higher than average number of players benefit in the area of player retention?
   
6. Would the cancelling of the 2020 college football season cause potential recruits look more seriously at the academics aspect of attending a given university?
   One potential positive aspect of no football this year might allow those individuals who have battled injuries in the past to more fully recover.Would Stanford be in a better position to be less impacted that other programs; more existing players sticking around, more high school kids showing real interest/academic commitment?

[teejers1]

I don't think one infection would cause the team to shutdown.   It would just cause the team to lose every game for a few weeks.

Why?  As best I can tell the NCAA rules with pods and 14 day quarantine rules sounds very similar to the CIF rules.   The CIF rules included the idea that players would practice in pods.   If a player tested positive in a pod, then all of the players in that pod would need to quarantine for 14 days.   The challenge would then be to form pods that prevent all players of a specific roster spot to be stuck in quarantine.   However, a pod with different positions and levels on the depth chart would create a practice group quite different from pre-COVID practices.

The CIF rules looked impractical even before the July resurgence of COVID.   So odds were good CIF would postpone all fall sports into a 10 week period between January-February and perhaps early March even before the largest school districts opted to go virtual and then Gov Newsom's virtual school declaration for most of the populated counties.   Their next meeting in Monday July 20th.   My children laugh at me when I tell them they should keep training just in case.   Admittedly my appeals are not particularly credible.

I'd bet big money the Jan-Mar plan will get cancelled in December, but that's for a different time.

The NCAA seems to be on a similar track.   Very tough pod and quarantine rules, a bunch of schools going on-line only, and athletic conferences embracing reality.  

Pro sports are much easier because you can force the people into hotel bubbles and command them not to interact with people outside of the team.    That is not possible for student-athletes for so many reasons.  

Looks like most of the pro-sport bubbles in the USA with everyone in the same venue have gone OK.   MLS had a few teams drop out.   I am not convinced the USA sports that are trying to add in travel will have the same luck, but even that is easier than trying to move a group of college students to different venues.

And before thinking about the logistics of moving a football team around in charter flights with several trainers and coaches, think about trying to move a soccer team around the USA with a couple of coaches on commercial flights.

After imagining that soccer scenario you likely will realize what the NCAA will announce in a few more days.

Maybe you're right on result of tests and reaction to same; however, I find it incredibly ironic that the CIF (or any college sports endeavor) would put a more stringent standard than is being put on people writ large, particularly given what we know about the impact of the virus on young, healthy people.  In other words, if one person tests positive, society doesn't quarantine him and everyone he has been in contact with for 14 days.  Hell, as Goose has been lamenting forever, we as a society can't even get a handle on any kind of contact tracing.  And this (presumably) is with older folks and those more susceptible to the virus.

Just another example of virus responses not being attuned to the risk presented.  At leas from here.

P.S.  Gavin Newsom will never get my vote, based on his one-size-fits-all school order.  Of course, I've hated the slimeball ever since he eked out a victory over my law school classmate for the SF Mayoral spot in what would have been one of the greatest grassroots political upsets ever.  Had Willie Brown flummoxed, which was worth the price of admission.  BTW, Chappelle had a fly-by on Newsom back in the day regarding his "loyalty" to his campaign manager . . . or more accurately, his wife.

[teejers1]

I don't think one infection would cause the team to shutdown.   It would just cause the team to lose every game for a few weeks.

Why?  As best I can tell the NCAA rules with pods and 14 day quarantine rules sounds very similar to the CIF rules.   The CIF rules included the idea that players would practice in pods.   If a player tested positive in a pod, then all of the players in that pod would need to quarantine for 14 days.   The challenge would then be to form pods that prevent all players of a specific roster spot to be stuck in quarantine.   However, a pod with different positions and levels on the depth chart would create a practice group quite different from pre-COVID practices.

The CIF rules looked impractical even before the July resurgence of COVID.   So odds were good CIF would postpone all fall sports into a 10 week period between January-February and perhaps early March even before the largest school districts opted to go virtual and then Gov Newsom's virtual school declaration for most of the populated counties.   Their next meeting in Monday July 20th.   My children laugh at me when I tell them they should keep training just in case.   Admittedly my appeals are not particularly credible.

I'd bet big money the Jan-Mar plan will get cancelled in December, but that's for a different time.

The NCAA seems to be on a similar track.   Very tough pod and quarantine rules, a bunch of schools going on-line only, and athletic conferences embracing reality.  

Pro sports are much easier because you can force the people into hotel bubbles and command them not to interact with people outside of the team.    That is not possible for student-athletes for so many reasons.  

Looks like most of the pro-sport bubbles in the USA with everyone in the same venue have gone OK.   MLS had a few teams drop out.   I am not convinced the USA sports that are trying to add in travel will have the same luck, but even that is easier than trying to move a group of college students to different venues.

And before thinking about the logistics of moving a football team around in charter flights with several trainers and coaches, think about trying to move a soccer team around the USA with a couple of coaches on commercial flights.

After imagining that soccer scenario you likely will realize what the NCAA will announce in a few more days.

Maybe you're right on result of tests and reaction to same; however, I find it incredibly ironic that the CIF (or any college sports endeavor) would put a more stringent standard than is being put on people writ large, particularly given what we know about the impact of the virus on young, healthy people.  In other words, if one person tests positive, society doesn't quarantine him and everyone he has been in contact with for 14 days.  Hell, as Goose has been lamenting forever, we as a society can't even get a handle on any kind of contact tracing.  And this (presumably) is with older folks and those more susceptible to the virus.

Just another example of virus responses not being attuned to the risk presented.  At leas from here.

P.S.  Gavin Newsom will never get my vote, based on his one-size-fits-all school order.  Of course, I've hated the slimeball ever since he eked out a victory over my law school classmate for the SF Mayoral spot in what would have been one of the greatest grassroots political upsets ever.  Had Willie Brown flummoxed, which was worth the price of admission.  BTW, Chappelle had a fly-by on Newsom back in the day regarding his "loyalty" to his campaign manager . . . or more accurately, his wife.

[Jamesy]

 In other words, if one person tests positive, society doesn't quarantine him and everyone he has been in contact with for 14 days.  

This is what happens with contact tracing. Whether people follow through with this is another story.

[Jamesy]

 In other words, if one person tests positive, society doesn't quarantine him and everyone he has been in contact with for 14 days.  

This is what happens with contact tracing. Whether people follow through with this is another story.

[BostonCard]

In other words, if one person tests positive, society doesn't quarantine him and everyone he has been in contact with for 14 days. 

That is what is supposed to happen.  Positive tests are supposed to isolate; their contacts are supposed to quarantine.

https://www.hhs.gov/answers/public-healt...index.html

That we don't effectively do it is why, as they say, we can't have nice things, like a college football season.  It would be so much better if we could exist in a mostly open society with relatively few restrictions, knowing that the sick are isolated and their contacts are quarantined.

BC

[BostonCard]

In other words, if one person tests positive, society doesn't quarantine him and everyone he has been in contact with for 14 days. 

That is what is supposed to happen.  Positive tests are supposed to isolate; their contacts are supposed to quarantine.

https://www.hhs.gov/answers/public-healt...index.html

That we don't effectively do it is why, as they say, we can't have nice things, like a college football season.  It would be so much better if we could exist in a mostly open society with relatively few restrictions, knowing that the sick are isolated and their contacts are quarantined.

BC

[teejers1]

In other words, if one person tests positive, society doesn't quarantine him and everyone he has been in contact with for 14 days. 

That is what is supposed to happen.  Positive tests are supposed to isolate; their contacts are supposed to quarantine.

https://www.hhs.gov/answers/public-healt...index.html

That we don't effectively do it is why, as they say, we can't have nice things, like a college football season.  It would be so much better if we could exist in a mostly open society with relatively few restrictions, knowing that the sick are isolated and their contacts are quarantined.

BC

Yes, I "get" that.  It just strikes me as odd (if not somewhat futile) to enforce perfectly the quarantine rules on a subset of the population who, odds on, don't have nearly the same risk coefficient as the rest of society; while we are in "epic fail" mode when it comes to effective trace and quarantine with said rest of society.

But hey, "every little bit helps," right?  Quarantining college kids puts the emphasis on "little" in that phrase.

[teejers1]

In other words, if one person tests positive, society doesn't quarantine him and everyone he has been in contact with for 14 days. 

That is what is supposed to happen.  Positive tests are supposed to isolate; their contacts are supposed to quarantine.

https://www.hhs.gov/answers/public-healt...index.html

That we don't effectively do it is why, as they say, we can't have nice things, like a college football season.  It would be so much better if we could exist in a mostly open society with relatively few restrictions, knowing that the sick are isolated and their contacts are quarantined.

BC

Yes, I "get" that.  It just strikes me as odd (if not somewhat futile) to enforce perfectly the quarantine rules on a subset of the population who, odds on, don't have nearly the same risk coefficient as the rest of society; while we are in "epic fail" mode when it comes to effective trace and quarantine with said rest of society.

But hey, "every little bit helps," right?  Quarantining college kids puts the emphasis on "little" in that phrase.

[BostonCard]

Yes, I "get" that.  It just strikes me as odd (if not somewhat futile) to enforce perfectly the quarantine rules on a subset of the population who, odds on, don't have nearly the same risk coefficient as the rest of society; while we are in "epic fail" mode when it comes to effective trace and quarantine with said rest of society.

But hey, "every little bit helps," right?  Quarantining college kids puts the emphasis on "little" in that phrase.

I think the term of art is "revealed preferences".  We as a society don't actually give a crap about public health; we do care a lot about being able to watch 20 year olds strap on helmets and try to advance an oblong ball 100 yards. More importantly, we are willing to pay (a lot) of money for that, so the NCAA will be willing to do the things that we ourselves don't seem willing or capable of doing.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yes, I "get" that.  It just strikes me as odd (if not somewhat futile) to enforce perfectly the quarantine rules on a subset of the population who, odds on, don't have nearly the same risk coefficient as the rest of society; while we are in "epic fail" mode when it comes to effective trace and quarantine with said rest of society.

But hey, "every little bit helps," right?  Quarantining college kids puts the emphasis on "little" in that phrase.

I think the term of art is "revealed preferences".  We as a society don't actually give a crap about public health; we do care a lot about being able to watch 20 year olds strap on helmets and try to advance an oblong ball 100 yards. More importantly, we are willing to pay (a lot) of money for that, so the NCAA will be willing to do the things that we ourselves don't seem willing or capable of doing.

BC

[Phogge]

I'm not willing to pay for that. I want my season ticket refund and adios. Plus I won't work for the NFL anymore if there are fans in the stadiums this year. I'm being productive in SIP but I realize that some people don't have it so good and some others will risk getting sick and perhaps dying for some Tonga Juice and the chance to scream from Section 233.

[Phogge]

I'm not willing to pay for that. I want my season ticket refund and adios. Plus I won't work for the NFL anymore if there are fans in the stadiums this year. I'm being productive in SIP but I realize that some people don't have it so good and some others will risk getting sick and perhaps dying for some Tonga Juice and the chance to scream from Section 233.

[Farm93]

In other words, if one person tests positive, society doesn't quarantine him and everyone he has been in contact with for 14 days. 

That is what is supposed to happen.  Positive tests are supposed to isolate; their contacts are supposed to quarantine.

https://www.hhs.gov/answers/public-healt...index.html

That we don't effectively do it is why, as they say, we can't have nice things, like a college football season.  It would be so much better if we could exist in a mostly open society with relatively few restrictions, knowing that the sick are isolated and their contacts are quarantined.

BC

Yes, I "get" that.  It just strikes me as odd (if not somewhat futile) to enforce perfectly the quarantine rules on a subset of the population who, odds on, don't have nearly the same risk coefficient as the rest of society; while we are in "epic fail" mode when it comes to effective trace and quarantine with said rest of society.

But hey, "every little bit helps," right?  Quarantining college kids puts the emphasis on "little" in that phrase.

FWIW -
I never thought CIF, and the public schools were going to support pods, MD checks, testing and quarantines just because it was best for the health of the players on the team.

Rather it seemed like there were at least a few other big reasons to do it.

Too many positive test for school to stay open -
If a player tests positive and then later 10 or 15 players in the same sport test positive then that school will almost certainly be closed for a period of time.  That would impact all of the kids, not just the players in the sport.   The sports are not mission critical and don't offer any meaningful revenue, so generally it would be OK if a team or two needs to forfeit along the way.

Liability - 
If a school district had players testing positive doing relatively little could be expensive.
Child #1 test positive.  School/CIF shrugs it off.  
Child #2 or #20 (doesn't matter really).   Tests positive and then dies.
That could be rather pricey liability issue since it would be rather easy to show the team/school/district did not follow health and safety guidelines. 

Now that I type that out, I realize those two concerns would be true for universities too.

The concerns about spread to the greater community are likely in the mix too, of course.

It doesn't matter now though.    Arizona (a state in the Pac-12 footprint) had a stunning number of deaths on Friday 7/17 (reported on Saturday).   Those numbers are out of control and I would not think UW, WSU, UofO, OSU, UCB, Stanford, Utah or Colorado would be thrilled to have teams go into Arizona in just a few weeks.

[Farm93]

In other words, if one person tests positive, society doesn't quarantine him and everyone he has been in contact with for 14 days. 

That is what is supposed to happen.  Positive tests are supposed to isolate; their contacts are supposed to quarantine.

https://www.hhs.gov/answers/public-healt...index.html

That we don't effectively do it is why, as they say, we can't have nice things, like a college football season.  It would be so much better if we could exist in a mostly open society with relatively few restrictions, knowing that the sick are isolated and their contacts are quarantined.

BC

Yes, I "get" that.  It just strikes me as odd (if not somewhat futile) to enforce perfectly the quarantine rules on a subset of the population who, odds on, don't have nearly the same risk coefficient as the rest of society; while we are in "epic fail" mode when it comes to effective trace and quarantine with said rest of society.

But hey, "every little bit helps," right?  Quarantining college kids puts the emphasis on "little" in that phrase.

FWIW -
I never thought CIF, and the public schools were going to support pods, MD checks, testing and quarantines just because it was best for the health of the players on the team.

Rather it seemed like there were at least a few other big reasons to do it.

Too many positive test for school to stay open -
If a player tests positive and then later 10 or 15 players in the same sport test positive then that school will almost certainly be closed for a period of time.  That would impact all of the kids, not just the players in the sport.   The sports are not mission critical and don't offer any meaningful revenue, so generally it would be OK if a team or two needs to forfeit along the way.

Liability - 
If a school district had players testing positive doing relatively little could be expensive.
Child #1 test positive.  School/CIF shrugs it off.  
Child #2 or #20 (doesn't matter really).   Tests positive and then dies.
That could be rather pricey liability issue since it would be rather easy to show the team/school/district did not follow health and safety guidelines. 

Now that I type that out, I realize those two concerns would be true for universities too.

The concerns about spread to the greater community are likely in the mix too, of course.

It doesn't matter now though.    Arizona (a state in the Pac-12 footprint) had a stunning number of deaths on Friday 7/17 (reported on Saturday).   Those numbers are out of control and I would not think UW, WSU, UofO, OSU, UCB, Stanford, Utah or Colorado would be thrilled to have teams go into Arizona in just a few weeks.

[fullmetal]

Nor would any state be thrilled to have a full team of players from Arizona plus coaches, staff, and fans invade their state for a weekend...

[fullmetal]

Nor would any state be thrilled to have a full team of players from Arizona plus coaches, staff, and fans invade their state for a weekend...