[Farm93]

And no, just telling all the players to get sick now (or hinting that they should) is wrong in so many ways -- is our entertainment and money more important than their health and safety? Do we know they'll be immune? And if the case is mild, will they have enough antibodies to make it through a season? This is how the "let's all get Covid" plan works out for a football team -- they decide to all get sick -- some get sick, some don't. It keeps spreading for a month. By mid July, everyone is sick and may infect other people in the program, their families, their professors, their classmates, their community. And I hope all their coaches and trainers have hardy immune systems (Nick Saban is 68). Even if the case is mild, your whole team has at least a flu all training camp, and some of them have by far the worst flu of their lives. A few may have lifelong damage to their lungs. Most players are not doing anything for 2 weeks. They're weak for another 2 weeks after that. They're hacking up a terrible cough for another 2 weeks after that. So now it's October, they are 1-3 due to losses and forfeits, with their only win coming against the Trojans, with no conditioning, no weight training in 3 months, and no playbook.

I think you are overplaying the net impact to 18-23 year-olds in very good physical health.   
And you concerns for Nick actually work against the argument. 

In June they should not to be working out with their head coach, so the players get sick without him around.   That's WAY better than a few getting sick near precious Nick in September.   But, let's not focus on what's best for Nick's survival.

Teams in European soccer leagues and F1 teams have been down this ethical dilemma road.   Inevitably, someone from the outside rushed in and said it was inappropriate or unethical.   Check.

But would it offer a competitive advantage?   Almost certainly yes...
A 20 year-old athlete will not be struggling with COVID for the duration you mentioned.   If 85 guys got the virus in June, data suggests at least 45 of them would have very mild cases or cases without symptoms.   That number might even approach 70 or more.   Let's use 45.   The other 40 would have more extreme cases, but very few would require hospitalization.   Let's call that 10, which again is far above the rate of the data for the age group.   Most of those 10 would get back in time, but even if not you'd enter the season knowing they are not available.   It would be better, from a coach perspective, to lose the 10 players in preseason and plan accordingly than to lose an unknown group of players days before the game vs LSU or GA because of a positive mid-week test result.

And let's not forget, as you correctly noted, a group this size in Alabama attending the University of Alabama will likely have a big risk of an outbreak a few weeks after the season starts because of all the spread issues you observed.

If an outbreak is almost unavoidable would you rather have the team be exposed in June or September?
This is not THAT crazy.   Sweden literally chose this herd immunity path for their entire country. 
It was probably not the right choice given the death rate in those above 50 years of age.
I would argue a football team could get there because the fatality concerns are so much lower, and the timing benefits are so much higher.
Especially if the players could get antibodies before they start working closely with the elderly members of their coaching staff.

To avoid the biggest ethical concerns I don't want to imply a staff will demand players get exposed, but a team that has an outbreak in June could have a competitive advantage. 

Imagine this scenario - Georgia coming to Bama in late September 
The University of Alabama has an outbreak that is forcing large numbers of ordinary students, faculty and staff into isolation.
Testing doesn't cover everyone in real time, so the prevailing belief is many people across the state are likely shedding the virus.

Would you as the Georgia team want to go to that campus to play a game even if fans were not in the stands?   
Think about how many local officials your average visiting player might encounter during that trip.
Hotel staff, bus drivers, police officers, stadium security, stadium maintenance staff, etc. etc. 
With each encounter bringing up new worries for the GA players and staff about testing positive a few days later and missing future games this season per the testing protocol.

If you were the UGA coach, it sure would be nice to know your team was already loaded with antibodies so you don't have to worry about those chance encounters in Alabama causing 10-20 players to miss 2 or 3 future games because of a positive test result.   Right?

As the NCAA says, there are thousands of student-athletes. 
My guess is at least a few will accidentally, or intentionally, discover a competitive advantage this season - COVID19 Antibodies

[Farm93]

And no, just telling all the players to get sick now (or hinting that they should) is wrong in so many ways -- is our entertainment and money more important than their health and safety? Do we know they'll be immune? And if the case is mild, will they have enough antibodies to make it through a season? This is how the "let's all get Covid" plan works out for a football team -- they decide to all get sick -- some get sick, some don't. It keeps spreading for a month. By mid July, everyone is sick and may infect other people in the program, their families, their professors, their classmates, their community. And I hope all their coaches and trainers have hardy immune systems (Nick Saban is 68). Even if the case is mild, your whole team has at least a flu all training camp, and some of them have by far the worst flu of their lives. A few may have lifelong damage to their lungs. Most players are not doing anything for 2 weeks. They're weak for another 2 weeks after that. They're hacking up a terrible cough for another 2 weeks after that. So now it's October, they are 1-3 due to losses and forfeits, with their only win coming against the Trojans, with no conditioning, no weight training in 3 months, and no playbook.

I think you are overplaying the net impact to 18-23 year-olds in very good physical health.   
And you concerns for Nick actually work against the argument. 

In June they should not to be working out with their head coach, so the players get sick without him around.   That's WAY better than a few getting sick near precious Nick in September.   But, let's not focus on what's best for Nick's survival.

Teams in European soccer leagues and F1 teams have been down this ethical dilemma road.   Inevitably, someone from the outside rushed in and said it was inappropriate or unethical.   Check.

But would it offer a competitive advantage?   Almost certainly yes...
A 20 year-old athlete will not be struggling with COVID for the duration you mentioned.   If 85 guys got the virus in June, data suggests at least 45 of them would have very mild cases or cases without symptoms.   That number might even approach 70 or more.   Let's use 45.   The other 40 would have more extreme cases, but very few would require hospitalization.   Let's call that 10, which again is far above the rate of the data for the age group.   Most of those 10 would get back in time, but even if not you'd enter the season knowing they are not available.   It would be better, from a coach perspective, to lose the 10 players in preseason and plan accordingly than to lose an unknown group of players days before the game vs LSU or GA because of a positive mid-week test result.

And let's not forget, as you correctly noted, a group this size in Alabama attending the University of Alabama will likely have a big risk of an outbreak a few weeks after the season starts because of all the spread issues you observed.

If an outbreak is almost unavoidable would you rather have the team be exposed in June or September?
This is not THAT crazy.   Sweden literally chose this herd immunity path for their entire country. 
It was probably not the right choice given the death rate in those above 50 years of age.
I would argue a football team could get there because the fatality concerns are so much lower, and the timing benefits are so much higher.
Especially if the players could get antibodies before they start working closely with the elderly members of their coaching staff.

To avoid the biggest ethical concerns I don't want to imply a staff will demand players get exposed, but a team that has an outbreak in June could have a competitive advantage. 

Imagine this scenario - Georgia coming to Bama in late September 
The University of Alabama has an outbreak that is forcing large numbers of ordinary students, faculty and staff into isolation.
Testing doesn't cover everyone in real time, so the prevailing belief is many people across the state are likely shedding the virus.

Would you as the Georgia team want to go to that campus to play a game even if fans were not in the stands?   
Think about how many local officials your average visiting player might encounter during that trip.
Hotel staff, bus drivers, police officers, stadium security, stadium maintenance staff, etc. etc. 
With each encounter bringing up new worries for the GA players and staff about testing positive a few days later and missing future games this season per the testing protocol.

If you were the UGA coach, it sure would be nice to know your team was already loaded with antibodies so you don't have to worry about those chance encounters in Alabama causing 10-20 players to miss 2 or 3 future games because of a positive test result.   Right?

As the NCAA says, there are thousands of student-athletes. 
My guess is at least a few will accidentally, or intentionally, discover a competitive advantage this season - COVID19 Antibodies