(06-04-2020, 04:13 PM)2006alum Wrote:(06-04-2020, 03:40 PM)Farm93 Wrote: Do you perhaps try to get the virus from the teammates that have tested positive? Remember, hard to believe many will get better healthcare than when on campus in the summer as an athlete without the burden of classes. Then as the season begins you MIGHT have antibodies to prevent you from missing a critical game during the season. A rather big incentive for your typical ~20 year old athlete.
Sounds crazy? More than a few coaches and organizations in sports have considered the idea of intentional exposure over the last 4 months.
It will be much easier for the coach, the players, the college campus and the hospital to deal with a team level COVID outbreak in June than in late October, so I can imagine some will quietly conclude that an outbreak now might be for the best.
While I completely agree that coaches may be tempted to encourage this, I would be shocked if the liability waiver Congress enacts would cover intentional exposure, which means that all you'd need is one pissed off parent going to the media to land the University terrible media coverage and a of immense proportions lawsuit.
I think liability concerns will prevent a coach from infecting the players. That's why my dilemmas did not include that range of options.
Coach Dilemma Example -
Let's say as a coach you have two QBs that are about even coming into camp HOWEVER one has COVID19 antibodies. Do you elevate the QB with antibodies to starter given the other player may suffer the equivalent of a season ending injury (testing positive for COVID in October)?
Player Dilemma Example -
Then, as a player living in the South (SEC) where POTUS45's comments about this being like the flu still resonate, might you be inclined to want to get the virus now so that you don't have to worry about missing games during the season? As an added bonus - COVID in June should also allow you to have a much better social life. Given your age, health and access to healthcare it is hard to believe they would see the worst COVID outcomes as possibilities.
That is not to say the coach tells players to get infected, rather it is to say the players might see the benefit of getting the virus in June/July rather than October/November.
If a team does ultimately have 50-60 players with COVID in June/July, I would think that coaching staff would be in a better place in September, October and November. Not to say a staff would instruct their players to get the virus, but it would be a meaningful competitive advantage assuming COVID19 antibodies offers some level of immunity for at least ~5 months.
(06-04-2020, 05:24 PM)2006alum Wrote: If the fall is mostly incoming students and the spring mostly seniors, this would have two happy byproducts:
1. FMotQ becomes less of a COVID-19 superspreader risk if there are not seniors to kiss freshmen; and
2. The risk of superspreading/alcohol-overdose-inducing/sexual-assault-enabling frat and row house parties is diminished if no (non-athlete) 21+-year-olds are on campus for the froshies first quarter(s) on campus.
I suspect you know this already, but life on campus will be miserable no matter which age groups are on campus.
There is no way FMotQ is permitted this year.
There will not be any parties on campus.
It really should be worse than that though.
The students are likely to only get take-away meals they will eat ALONE in their dorm rooms.
Most dorm common areas and any other areas with multiple seats (meeting rooms, computer rooms, etc.) will be closed.
And likely all in-person groups, clubs, and organizations will be prohibited from holding activities or meetings, with the exception of the sports teams.