[teejers1]

This doesn't bode well for Fall season NCAA sports happening this Fall. I can't imagine CSUF is going to be some sort of outlier in the CSU system or that UC won't be acting in a similar fashion.

Hmm.  I could see a rationale where this bodes the other way.

I'm wondering if schools will go online (and collect tuition from some/many), and then take a subset of the student body (athletes), isolate them, and allow them to compete.  The risks described above all go down (though the overall risk of doing this is greater than not doing it, of course).  And the school earns at least some $$ from football, for example.

It would be completely counter-intuitive for this to happen - having no kids at college, except the athletes who are competing on behalf of the school.  But if you consider that football sustains so many college athletic programs across the country, I could see where a broad swath of schools - the football-crazed schools in the south, as well as schools who like to field college teams in many sports - would want to find a way for this to work.  Yes, football $$ would be down due to no/limited gates.  But there still would be TV money, which is real.  There are also the "body bag" games (pun unintended) that are scheduled precisely because those schools need the $$ to sustain the athletic programs.  And the risk of this approach would be lower than that with all students back on all campuses.

Having said all that, I doubt it happens.  But otoh, I wouldn't be shocked if it did.  Stanford, of course, will take the high road and not compete.    But some might argue that that would have happened regardless . . .

[teejers1]

This doesn't bode well for Fall season NCAA sports happening this Fall. I can't imagine CSUF is going to be some sort of outlier in the CSU system or that UC won't be acting in a similar fashion.

Hmm.  I could see a rationale where this bodes the other way.

I'm wondering if schools will go online (and collect tuition from some/many), and then take a subset of the student body (athletes), isolate them, and allow them to compete.  The risks described above all go down (though the overall risk of doing this is greater than not doing it, of course).  And the school earns at least some $$ from football, for example.

It would be completely counter-intuitive for this to happen - having no kids at college, except the athletes who are competing on behalf of the school.  But if you consider that football sustains so many college athletic programs across the country, I could see where a broad swath of schools - the football-crazed schools in the south, as well as schools who like to field college teams in many sports - would want to find a way for this to work.  Yes, football $$ would be down due to no/limited gates.  But there still would be TV money, which is real.  There are also the "body bag" games (pun unintended) that are scheduled precisely because those schools need the $$ to sustain the athletic programs.  And the risk of this approach would be lower than that with all students back on all campuses.

Having said all that, I doubt it happens.  But otoh, I wouldn't be shocked if it did.  Stanford, of course, will take the high road and not compete.    But some might argue that that would have happened regardless . . .