[Farm93]

April 15 2020 
LA Mayor Garcetti anticipates that large gatherings MIGHT not be possible in LA until 2021
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/20...142950002/

April 23 2020
UofA President notes he believes it is unlikely there will be fall football, even while expressing confidence that UofA will have students on campus.  
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2888198-university-of-arizona-president-says-fall-football-unlikely-amid-covid-19

April 30 2020
Pac-12 Larry Scott says Pac-12 still planning to start football on time, but working on alternate plans
https://frntofficesport.com/larry-scott-...damentals/

May 7 2020
Oregon Governor Kate Brown announced large gatherings AT LEAST until end of September must be cancelled or modified.   That means that Oregon and Oregon State would not play in front of fans in September if the games are played.  This is the first binding declaration in this group.
Appears the Pac-12 may still try to have a football season, but this is before any type of summer surge or 2nd wave in the fall.
https://sports.yahoo.com/oregon-governor-announces-no-sporting-with-large-crowds-through-september-214745030.html

Oregon does not have that many cases or deaths, so hard to imagine CA, WA or AZ will have more lenient policies.   Guess we will see in time.   

Sure wish Stanford was going to Oregon in September rather than late October

[Farm93]

April 15 2020 
LA Mayor Garcetti anticipates that large gatherings MIGHT not be possible in LA until 2021
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/20...142950002/

April 23 2020
UofA President notes he believes it is unlikely there will be fall football, even while expressing confidence that UofA will have students on campus.  
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2888198-university-of-arizona-president-says-fall-football-unlikely-amid-covid-19

April 30 2020
Pac-12 Larry Scott says Pac-12 still planning to start football on time, but working on alternate plans
https://frntofficesport.com/larry-scott-...damentals/

May 7 2020
Oregon Governor Kate Brown announced large gatherings AT LEAST until end of September must be cancelled or modified.   That means that Oregon and Oregon State would not play in front of fans in September if the games are played.  This is the first binding declaration in this group.
Appears the Pac-12 may still try to have a football season, but this is before any type of summer surge or 2nd wave in the fall.
https://sports.yahoo.com/oregon-governor-announces-no-sporting-with-large-crowds-through-september-214745030.html

Oregon does not have that many cases or deaths, so hard to imagine CA, WA or AZ will have more lenient policies.   Guess we will see in time.   

Sure wish Stanford was going to Oregon in September rather than late October

[burger]

One more: Newsom said today there'd be no sports in front of fans in CA until there's a vaccine.

https://www.sacbee.com/sports/article242...gnews_main

[burger]

One more: Newsom said today there'd be no sports in front of fans in CA until there's a vaccine.

https://www.sacbee.com/sports/article242...gnews_main

[Snorlax94]

I also don’t see how football can return this fall with fans in the stands. I yell a lot at games, and if people are packed so close together you can hi-5 someone 2 rows away, screaming, being close to the same people for 4 hours, it’s a superspreader event just waiting to happen.

But I do see a possible path to college football this fall. I’m not necessarily in favor of it, unless it turns out it can be done safely.

1) the numbers in Santa Clara County are very good and getting better. It’s down to I think <20 confirmed cases a day for a population of ~2 million (or 1 in 100,000), and headed lower. What if it actually becomes contained across the pac 12 states? What if fewer than 1 in a million was getting infected on an average day by September in pac 12 states?
2) we’re still learning about asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission. What if we can improve testing to the point where the risk of transmission is very, very low?
3) what if we develop better treatments, especially for younger people, and we nearly eliminate the risk of lifelong harm?

What if all of these conditions were met? And, a thought — what if the pac 12 were the only conference with enough containment to play a full season of college football? Finally, a Pac 12 team could be back in the cfp. Or even 2.

[Snorlax94]

I also don’t see how football can return this fall with fans in the stands. I yell a lot at games, and if people are packed so close together you can hi-5 someone 2 rows away, screaming, being close to the same people for 4 hours, it’s a superspreader event just waiting to happen.

But I do see a possible path to college football this fall. I’m not necessarily in favor of it, unless it turns out it can be done safely.

1) the numbers in Santa Clara County are very good and getting better. It’s down to I think <20 confirmed cases a day for a population of ~2 million (or 1 in 100,000), and headed lower. What if it actually becomes contained across the pac 12 states? What if fewer than 1 in a million was getting infected on an average day by September in pac 12 states?
2) we’re still learning about asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission. What if we can improve testing to the point where the risk of transmission is very, very low?
3) what if we develop better treatments, especially for younger people, and we nearly eliminate the risk of lifelong harm?

What if all of these conditions were met? And, a thought — what if the pac 12 were the only conference with enough containment to play a full season of college football? Finally, a Pac 12 team could be back in the cfp. Or even 2.

[OutsiderFan]

If it's too dangerous for fans to be in attendance, how the hell can you justify football players who aren't employees and have no ability to protect themselves, playing in games that put their health at risk? Are all players going to be required to wear masks? And, what about the sub-set of players who will think they aren't going to be risking their health to play a sport that doesn't exactly adhere to social distancing? Do they lose their scholarship if they refuse to play. Moreover, there are what, 100 players on a team, and at least 20 support personnel, many with coaches over 50 and 60.  

This will absolutely happen.  A player will contract the virus. A player will play in a game and pass it to someone on the other team. That player will then go back to campus, to a party and infect many students who will bring it to their dorm or campus apartment and spread to their roommates. Now add in these students attending classes in person.  We know schools can't have a situation where football players are on campus and the general student population isn't.

I believe Arizona has announced it is having students on campus in Fall, but Arizona has some of the worst testing in the country, and ASU projects the state is going to have exponential growth this month because the Governor is lifting restrictions on Monday.

It's understandable that schools want to play football games for the revenue they create, but we all want a lot of things we can't have. Professional sports can go without fans because A) they have unions to negotiate and agree on playing conditions, safety precautions, etc. and B) they have resources to adequately test players, sequester them, etc.

[OutsiderFan]

If it's too dangerous for fans to be in attendance, how the hell can you justify football players who aren't employees and have no ability to protect themselves, playing in games that put their health at risk? Are all players going to be required to wear masks? And, what about the sub-set of players who will think they aren't going to be risking their health to play a sport that doesn't exactly adhere to social distancing? Do they lose their scholarship if they refuse to play. Moreover, there are what, 100 players on a team, and at least 20 support personnel, many with coaches over 50 and 60.  

This will absolutely happen.  A player will contract the virus. A player will play in a game and pass it to someone on the other team. That player will then go back to campus, to a party and infect many students who will bring it to their dorm or campus apartment and spread to their roommates. Now add in these students attending classes in person.  We know schools can't have a situation where football players are on campus and the general student population isn't.

I believe Arizona has announced it is having students on campus in Fall, but Arizona has some of the worst testing in the country, and ASU projects the state is going to have exponential growth this month because the Governor is lifting restrictions on Monday.

It's understandable that schools want to play football games for the revenue they create, but we all want a lot of things we can't have. Professional sports can go without fans because A) they have unions to negotiate and agree on playing conditions, safety precautions, etc. and B) they have resources to adequately test players, sequester them, etc.

[stupac2]

If it's too dangerous for fans to be in attendance, how the hell can you justify football players who aren't employees and have no ability to protect themselves, playing in games that put their health at risk? Are all players going to be required to wear masks? And, what about the sub-set of players who will think they aren't going to be risking their health to play a sport that doesn't exactly adhere to social distancing? Do they lose their scholarship if they refuse to play. Moreover, there are what, 100 players on a team, and at least 20 support personnel, many with coaches over 50 and 60.

This is the thing that I don't understand, there's no reason whatsoever to think that if it's unsafe for fans to attend (which will be true until there's a vaccine or a treatment) that it's safe to actually play the game. Or, hell, to do normally practices/meetings (a full team meeting violates pretty much every standard of "large gathering" I've heard of).

I keep having this feeling that what's going to happen is places will try to do it prematurely, there's going to be a large asymptomatic spread in a place where no one will really be tested, and then some poor kid is going to to stroke out and die, and that's what finally puts an end to the whole thing.

[stupac2]

If it's too dangerous for fans to be in attendance, how the hell can you justify football players who aren't employees and have no ability to protect themselves, playing in games that put their health at risk? Are all players going to be required to wear masks? And, what about the sub-set of players who will think they aren't going to be risking their health to play a sport that doesn't exactly adhere to social distancing? Do they lose their scholarship if they refuse to play. Moreover, there are what, 100 players on a team, and at least 20 support personnel, many with coaches over 50 and 60.

This is the thing that I don't understand, there's no reason whatsoever to think that if it's unsafe for fans to attend (which will be true until there's a vaccine or a treatment) that it's safe to actually play the game. Or, hell, to do normally practices/meetings (a full team meeting violates pretty much every standard of "large gathering" I've heard of).

I keep having this feeling that what's going to happen is places will try to do it prematurely, there's going to be a large asymptomatic spread in a place where no one will really be tested, and then some poor kid is going to to stroke out and die, and that's what finally puts an end to the whole thing.

[BostonCard]

It's a matter of numbers.  Let's say that the actual local infection rate is 1 in 10,000.  The chances that at least one person in the stands is infected (even if attendance is sparse, say 25,000) is 81%.  The chance that at least one player is infected (if there are 85 on each team) is 2% and probably less because at least for players, the assumption of independence is not valid (that is, if one player is infected, probably more than one are, so it is not really 130 independent draws).

Secondly, there is the fact that mortality among college aged students is going to be very low.  Mortality among fans is going to be higher, potentially much higher depending on the fans' demographics.

I'm not arguing that football should restart; I think we need to see what the data shows.

BC

[BostonCard]

It's a matter of numbers.  Let's say that the actual local infection rate is 1 in 10,000.  The chances that at least one person in the stands is infected (even if attendance is sparse, say 25,000) is 81%.  The chance that at least one player is infected (if there are 85 on each team) is 2% and probably less because at least for players, the assumption of independence is not valid (that is, if one player is infected, probably more than one are, so it is not really 130 independent draws).

Secondly, there is the fact that mortality among college aged students is going to be very low.  Mortality among fans is going to be higher, potentially much higher depending on the fans' demographics.

I'm not arguing that football should restart; I think we need to see what the data shows.

BC

[Farm93]

It's a matter of numbers.  Let's say that the actual local infection rate is 1 in 10,000.  The chances that at least one person in the stands is infected (even if attendance is sparse, say 25,000) is 81%.  The chance that at least one player is infected (if there are 85 on each team) is 2% and probably less because at least for players, the assumption of independence is not valid (that is, if one player is infected, probably more than one are, so it is not really 130 independent draws).

Secondly, there is the fact that mortality among college aged students is going to be very low.  Mortality among fans is going to be higher, potentially much higher depending on the fans' demographics.

I'm not arguing that football should restart; I think we need to see what the data shows.

BC

BC - You are not accounting for a few key elements 

1 - Visiting team players and coaches - They often travel from hundreds of miles away, potentially with a different infection rate.
2 - Visiting team fans - They often come from several different areas reaching the venue by planes, trains, buses and cars.  
3 - Stadium support staff - They would need to risk their health.   This one is uniquely tricky since it is very hard to believe a school could provide appropriate PPE and social distancing.
4 - The football players may all be young, but their support staff (coaches, trainers, managers, administrators) are generally much older. 

Ultimately it will come down to a risk assessment.  Money for AD budgets vs health of the participants and employees.

If college football had the revenue of college soccer I would trust FBS colleges and universities to prioritize the health of their students, but I am not so sure health of the students will win the day here if schools are allowed to assess the risks and rewards on their own.

If any FBS conference suspends soccer, cross country, volleyball, field hockey and water polo but insists that football move forward the true motivation will be clear to all.

[Farm93]

It's a matter of numbers.  Let's say that the actual local infection rate is 1 in 10,000.  The chances that at least one person in the stands is infected (even if attendance is sparse, say 25,000) is 81%.  The chance that at least one player is infected (if there are 85 on each team) is 2% and probably less because at least for players, the assumption of independence is not valid (that is, if one player is infected, probably more than one are, so it is not really 130 independent draws).

Secondly, there is the fact that mortality among college aged students is going to be very low.  Mortality among fans is going to be higher, potentially much higher depending on the fans' demographics.

I'm not arguing that football should restart; I think we need to see what the data shows.

BC

BC - You are not accounting for a few key elements 

1 - Visiting team players and coaches - They often travel from hundreds of miles away, potentially with a different infection rate.
2 - Visiting team fans - They often come from several different areas reaching the venue by planes, trains, buses and cars.  
3 - Stadium support staff - They would need to risk their health.   This one is uniquely tricky since it is very hard to believe a school could provide appropriate PPE and social distancing.
4 - The football players may all be young, but their support staff (coaches, trainers, managers, administrators) are generally much older. 

Ultimately it will come down to a risk assessment.  Money for AD budgets vs health of the participants and employees.

If college football had the revenue of college soccer I would trust FBS colleges and universities to prioritize the health of their students, but I am not so sure health of the students will win the day here if schools are allowed to assess the risks and rewards on their own.

If any FBS conference suspends soccer, cross country, volleyball, field hockey and water polo but insists that football move forward the true motivation will be clear to all.

[stupac2]

It's a matter of numbers.  Let's say that the actual local infection rate is 1 in 10,000.  The chances that at least one person in the stands is infected (even if attendance is sparse, say 25,000) is 81%.  The chance that at least one player is infected (if there are 85 on each team) is 2% and probably less because at least for players, the assumption of independence is not valid (that is, if one player is infected, probably more than one are, so it is not really 130 independent draws).

Secondly, there is the fact that mortality among college aged students is going to be very low.  Mortality among fans is going to be higher, potentially much higher depending on the fans' demographics.

I'm not arguing that football should restart; I think we need to see what the data shows.

BC

There are something like 100 total players on a team, plus all the coaches and assistants and whatnot. Plus, given how contagious this is, all their families and other close contacts. You're looking at tens of thousands of people involved with playing the game, the odds that they all manage to go the entire season without anyone getting infected are indistinguishable from 0, and with anything even approaching normal playing/practicing conditions once anyone is infected half the team/staff will have it.

That's the real problem. If you could somehow seal all the teams and staff away from everything else for the season then it could maybe work, but there are too many ways for the virus to get in, especially if we open up and cases start rising again, and double especially if there's a seasonal affect and it comes roaring back right as weather cools off in the middle of the football season.

I'm just skeptical that this can all work, and see no reason why it wouldn't be like the NBA season where one positive comes up, then a bunch of that player's teammates test positive, and the whole thing shuts down.

[stupac2]

It's a matter of numbers.  Let's say that the actual local infection rate is 1 in 10,000.  The chances that at least one person in the stands is infected (even if attendance is sparse, say 25,000) is 81%.  The chance that at least one player is infected (if there are 85 on each team) is 2% and probably less because at least for players, the assumption of independence is not valid (that is, if one player is infected, probably more than one are, so it is not really 130 independent draws).

Secondly, there is the fact that mortality among college aged students is going to be very low.  Mortality among fans is going to be higher, potentially much higher depending on the fans' demographics.

I'm not arguing that football should restart; I think we need to see what the data shows.

BC

There are something like 100 total players on a team, plus all the coaches and assistants and whatnot. Plus, given how contagious this is, all their families and other close contacts. You're looking at tens of thousands of people involved with playing the game, the odds that they all manage to go the entire season without anyone getting infected are indistinguishable from 0, and with anything even approaching normal playing/practicing conditions once anyone is infected half the team/staff will have it.

That's the real problem. If you could somehow seal all the teams and staff away from everything else for the season then it could maybe work, but there are too many ways for the virus to get in, especially if we open up and cases start rising again, and double especially if there's a seasonal affect and it comes roaring back right as weather cools off in the middle of the football season.

I'm just skeptical that this can all work, and see no reason why it wouldn't be like the NBA season where one positive comes up, then a bunch of that player's teammates test positive, and the whole thing shuts down.

[JustAnotherFan]

It's a matter of numbers.  Let's say that the actual local infection rate is 1 in 10,000.  The chances that at least one person in the stands is infected (even if attendance is sparse, say 25,000) is 81%.  The chance that at least one player is infected (if there are 85 on each team) is 2% and probably less because at least for players, the assumption of independence is not valid (that is, if one player is infected, probably more than one are, so it is not really 130 independent draws).

Secondly, there is the fact that mortality among college aged students is going to be very low.  Mortality among fans is going to be higher, potentially much higher depending on the fans' demographics.

I'm not arguing that football should restart; I think we need to see what the data shows.

BC

BC - You are not accounting for a few key elements 

1 - Visiting team players and coaches - They often travel from hundreds of miles away, potentially with a different infection rate.
2 - Visiting team fans - They often come from several different areas reaching the venue by planes, trains, buses and cars.  
3 - Stadium support staff - They would need to risk their health.   This one is uniquely tricky since it is very hard to believe a school could provide appropriate PPE and social distancing.
4 - The football players may all be young, but their support staff (coaches, trainers, managers, administrators) are generally much older. 

Ultimately it will come down to a risk assessment.  Money for AD budgets vs health of the participants and employees.

If college football had the revenue of college soccer I would trust FBS colleges and universities to prioritize the health of their students, but I am not so sure health of the students will win the day here if schools are allowed to assess the risks and rewards on their own.

If any FBS conference suspends soccer, cross country, volleyball, field hockey and water polo but insists that football move forward the true motivation will be clear to all.

Someone previously posted a statement from the NCAA or some conference about Title IX implications to shutting down certain sports but not the revenue sports (men's football and basketball).

[JustAnotherFan]

It's a matter of numbers.  Let's say that the actual local infection rate is 1 in 10,000.  The chances that at least one person in the stands is infected (even if attendance is sparse, say 25,000) is 81%.  The chance that at least one player is infected (if there are 85 on each team) is 2% and probably less because at least for players, the assumption of independence is not valid (that is, if one player is infected, probably more than one are, so it is not really 130 independent draws).

Secondly, there is the fact that mortality among college aged students is going to be very low.  Mortality among fans is going to be higher, potentially much higher depending on the fans' demographics.

I'm not arguing that football should restart; I think we need to see what the data shows.

BC

BC - You are not accounting for a few key elements 

1 - Visiting team players and coaches - They often travel from hundreds of miles away, potentially with a different infection rate.
2 - Visiting team fans - They often come from several different areas reaching the venue by planes, trains, buses and cars.  
3 - Stadium support staff - They would need to risk their health.   This one is uniquely tricky since it is very hard to believe a school could provide appropriate PPE and social distancing.
4 - The football players may all be young, but their support staff (coaches, trainers, managers, administrators) are generally much older. 

Ultimately it will come down to a risk assessment.  Money for AD budgets vs health of the participants and employees.

If college football had the revenue of college soccer I would trust FBS colleges and universities to prioritize the health of their students, but I am not so sure health of the students will win the day here if schools are allowed to assess the risks and rewards on their own.

If any FBS conference suspends soccer, cross country, volleyball, field hockey and water polo but insists that football move forward the true motivation will be clear to all.

Someone previously posted a statement from the NCAA or some conference about Title IX implications to shutting down certain sports but not the revenue sports (men's football and basketball).

[chrisk]

Taiwan just started allowing fans to attend its pro baseball games (no more than 1000 fans with appropriate social distancing and wearing masks). No food is allowed in and concession stands are closed.

This is after 26 straight days of NO domestically transmitted cases identified.

[chrisk]

Taiwan just started allowing fans to attend its pro baseball games (no more than 1000 fans with appropriate social distancing and wearing masks). No food is allowed in and concession stands are closed.

This is after 26 straight days of NO domestically transmitted cases identified.

[chrisk]

If California maintains stricter rules to limit travel in and out of the state, how about a football season consisting of hone and home games with:

Berkeley
UCLA
USC
San Jose State
San Diego State
Fresno State

[chrisk]

If California maintains stricter rules to limit travel in and out of the state, how about a football season consisting of hone and home games with:

Berkeley
UCLA
USC
San Jose State
San Diego State
Fresno State

[Leftcoast]

I bet we will see football played in empty or near empty stadiums and with lots of precautions and testing.

Sure there will be some risk to players but I bet it's a risk that almost every player will willingly accept.  To take Stanford's county as an example, the 21-30 year old group represents 0% of the deaths and 12% of the cases.  On top of that 94% of the deaths have an associated comorbidity that the players probably do not have (and if they do, by all means don't play.)

So, if you are an 18-22 year old who has spent your life preparing for college football do you want to sit the year out?  Skip a year of football that you will probably never regain?  I've talked to a lot of athletes who sat out the 1980 Olympics and none of them are happy about it.  Different causes surely but do not undersell the deep desire to play the sport you trained for and the unhappiness caused when someone else pulls that chance away - particularly if the stated reason is "for your own good".

[Leftcoast]

I bet we will see football played in empty or near empty stadiums and with lots of precautions and testing.

Sure there will be some risk to players but I bet it's a risk that almost every player will willingly accept.  To take Stanford's county as an example, the 21-30 year old group represents 0% of the deaths and 12% of the cases.  On top of that 94% of the deaths have an associated comorbidity that the players probably do not have (and if they do, by all means don't play.)

So, if you are an 18-22 year old who has spent your life preparing for college football do you want to sit the year out?  Skip a year of football that you will probably never regain?  I've talked to a lot of athletes who sat out the 1980 Olympics and none of them are happy about it.  Different causes surely but do not undersell the deep desire to play the sport you trained for and the unhappiness caused when someone else pulls that chance away - particularly if the stated reason is "for your own good".

[dabigv13]

I think a lot of players wouldn't play if it meant their family or coaches are at risk however. Especially if no eligibility is lost.

Also possible at that time we will have more information on long term sequelae. If a lot of covid patients end up with permanent scarring in their lungs which affects lung function, many players with an eye on professional football, or even just their own health, may reconsider. This is a big question mark at this time.

[dabigv13]

I think a lot of players wouldn't play if it meant their family or coaches are at risk however. Especially if no eligibility is lost.

Also possible at that time we will have more information on long term sequelae. If a lot of covid patients end up with permanent scarring in their lungs which affects lung function, many players with an eye on professional football, or even just their own health, may reconsider. This is a big question mark at this time.

[magnus]

I think a lot will depend on if the NBA or MLB are able to restart/start their seasons.  If they do, that will go a long way towards restarting football.  

That said, I think even if MLB is able to restart, the chances that they will last more than a month before someone gets infected is very tiny and so more than likely, all these sports ventures will start up and unfortunately, probably abruptly stop (like the NBA already did).

Taiwan and South Korea aren't great examples because their daily new cases are in single digits.  Our levels are still _way_ too high and there's no large decrease in sight. =/

[magnus]

I think a lot will depend on if the NBA or MLB are able to restart/start their seasons.  If they do, that will go a long way towards restarting football.  

That said, I think even if MLB is able to restart, the chances that they will last more than a month before someone gets infected is very tiny and so more than likely, all these sports ventures will start up and unfortunately, probably abruptly stop (like the NBA already did).

Taiwan and South Korea aren't great examples because their daily new cases are in single digits.  Our levels are still _way_ too high and there's no large decrease in sight. =/

[Farm93]

It's a matter of numbers.  Let's say that the actual local infection rate is 1 in 10,000.  The chances that at least one person in the stands is infected (even if attendance is sparse, say 25,000) is 81%.  The chance that at least one player is infected (if there are 85 on each team) is 2% and probably less because at least for players, the assumption of independence is not valid (that is, if one player is infected, probably more than one are, so it is not really 130 independent draws).

Secondly, there is the fact that mortality among college aged students is going to be very low.  Mortality among fans is going to be higher, potentially much higher depending on the fans' demographics.

I'm not arguing that football should restart; I think we need to see what the data shows.

BC

BC - You are not accounting for a few key elements 

1 - Visiting team players and coaches - They often travel from hundreds of miles away, potentially with a different infection rate.
2 - Visiting team fans - They often come from several different areas reaching the venue by planes, trains, buses and cars.  
3 - Stadium support staff - They would need to risk their health.   This one is uniquely tricky since it is very hard to believe a school could provide appropriate PPE and social distancing.
4 - The football players may all be young, but their support staff (coaches, trainers, managers, administrators) are generally much older. 

Ultimately it will come down to a risk assessment.  Money for AD budgets vs health of the participants and employees.

If college football had the revenue of college soccer I would trust FBS colleges and universities to prioritize the health of their students, but I am not so sure health of the students will win the day here if schools are allowed to assess the risks and rewards on their own.

If any FBS conference suspends soccer, cross country, volleyball, field hockey and water polo but insists that football move forward the true motivation will be clear to all.

Someone previously posted a statement from the NCAA or some conference about Title IX implications to shutting down certain sports but not the revenue sports (men's football and basketball).

I suspect the SEC...errr....colleges across the country...will seek a waiver from Title IX for Fall 2020. 

They might try to note a contractual obligation to provide content for their TV contracts.  They might use this event as an opportunity to challenge different aspects of Title IX.  I suspect at this point there would be a path in Federal courts that would hit only Trump appointed judges.

Or they could claim they will achieve that balance over the full year or perhaps they would field WVB and/or WFH, and only cancel M&W soccer, M&W cross country and Men's Water Polo.  

I guess we will see, but I think the SEC and ACC will want to televise football games even if fans are not in the stands.   For a few SEC schools we are almost to a place where the football games are more essential to the 2020 economy than the on-campus education.   I would think a number of schools could tolerate restricting attendance to the football teams and socially distanced marching bands in the stands.

[Farm93]

It's a matter of numbers.  Let's say that the actual local infection rate is 1 in 10,000.  The chances that at least one person in the stands is infected (even if attendance is sparse, say 25,000) is 81%.  The chance that at least one player is infected (if there are 85 on each team) is 2% and probably less because at least for players, the assumption of independence is not valid (that is, if one player is infected, probably more than one are, so it is not really 130 independent draws).

Secondly, there is the fact that mortality among college aged students is going to be very low.  Mortality among fans is going to be higher, potentially much higher depending on the fans' demographics.

I'm not arguing that football should restart; I think we need to see what the data shows.

BC

BC - You are not accounting for a few key elements 

1 - Visiting team players and coaches - They often travel from hundreds of miles away, potentially with a different infection rate.
2 - Visiting team fans - They often come from several different areas reaching the venue by planes, trains, buses and cars.  
3 - Stadium support staff - They would need to risk their health.   This one is uniquely tricky since it is very hard to believe a school could provide appropriate PPE and social distancing.
4 - The football players may all be young, but their support staff (coaches, trainers, managers, administrators) are generally much older. 

Ultimately it will come down to a risk assessment.  Money for AD budgets vs health of the participants and employees.

If college football had the revenue of college soccer I would trust FBS colleges and universities to prioritize the health of their students, but I am not so sure health of the students will win the day here if schools are allowed to assess the risks and rewards on their own.

If any FBS conference suspends soccer, cross country, volleyball, field hockey and water polo but insists that football move forward the true motivation will be clear to all.

Someone previously posted a statement from the NCAA or some conference about Title IX implications to shutting down certain sports but not the revenue sports (men's football and basketball).

I suspect the SEC...errr....colleges across the country...will seek a waiver from Title IX for Fall 2020. 

They might try to note a contractual obligation to provide content for their TV contracts.  They might use this event as an opportunity to challenge different aspects of Title IX.  I suspect at this point there would be a path in Federal courts that would hit only Trump appointed judges.

Or they could claim they will achieve that balance over the full year or perhaps they would field WVB and/or WFH, and only cancel M&W soccer, M&W cross country and Men's Water Polo.  

I guess we will see, but I think the SEC and ACC will want to televise football games even if fans are not in the stands.   For a few SEC schools we are almost to a place where the football games are more essential to the 2020 economy than the on-campus education.   I would think a number of schools could tolerate restricting attendance to the football teams and socially distanced marching bands in the stands.

[needle]

Assuming just for a moment cases decline and there’s a clear downward trend, I don’t believe the SEC would give up on fans in the stands without governmental intervention.

[needle]

Assuming just for a moment cases decline and there’s a clear downward trend, I don’t believe the SEC would give up on fans in the stands without governmental intervention.

[akiddoc]

As the resident gymnastics person, if there is one sport that could achieve reasonable social distancing, gymnastics is one. The arena for a dual or tri-meet has very few competitors on the floor at one time, and it could be lessened even more than usual. Most schools barely get 100 fans in the stands for men's meets. I went to a meet between Stanford and Cal a few years ago at Haas and counted exactly 72 spectators with a capacity of 10,000 in the arena. So there would be less risk than actually going to class. I'm not sure how many sports could duplicate this, though. 

One comment about football: although there would be some risk, the actual playing of the game might not be as risky as traveling on the plane. Trapped in a can and breathing everyone else's air compared to being outside where the breeze immediately disburses and dilutes the virus.

[akiddoc]

As the resident gymnastics person, if there is one sport that could achieve reasonable social distancing, gymnastics is one. The arena for a dual or tri-meet has very few competitors on the floor at one time, and it could be lessened even more than usual. Most schools barely get 100 fans in the stands for men's meets. I went to a meet between Stanford and Cal a few years ago at Haas and counted exactly 72 spectators with a capacity of 10,000 in the arena. So there would be less risk than actually going to class. I'm not sure how many sports could duplicate this, though. 

One comment about football: although there would be some risk, the actual playing of the game might not be as risky as traveling on the plane. Trapped in a can and breathing everyone else's air compared to being outside where the breeze immediately disburses and dilutes the virus.

[OutsiderFan]

A cautionary tale from South Korea, pretty well lauded as the gold standard for Covid-19 management:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/thehowie/status/1259090015663120385[/tweet]

[OutsiderFan]

A cautionary tale from South Korea, pretty well lauded as the gold standard for Covid-19 management:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/thehowie/status/1259090015663120385[/tweet]

[BostonCard]

German Bundesliga is starting up again next week end.  Players will be tested twice a week (positive players will be isolated) and there are guidelines about where to stay, how to travel to matches, and even how to shower.  Matches will be played in stadia that only contain players, officials, support staff, and the press.  Lots of other leagues will be looking to the Bundesliga as either a blueprint or a cautionary tale.

BC

[BostonCard]

German Bundesliga is starting up again next week end.  Players will be tested twice a week (positive players will be isolated) and there are guidelines about where to stay, how to travel to matches, and even how to shower.  Matches will be played in stadia that only contain players, officials, support staff, and the press.  Lots of other leagues will be looking to the Bundesliga as either a blueprint or a cautionary tale.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

I wonder how this factors into Larry's calculus?

Breaking Sunday, May 10: Premier League
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52605961

---

And what happens if a player or coach on a team tests positive? Does it have to quarantine for 14 days, and what does that do to scheduling?
https://www.espn.com/soccer/german-bunde...of-restart

[OutsiderFan]

I wonder how this factors into Larry's calculus?

Breaking Sunday, May 10: Premier League
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52605961

---

And what happens if a player or coach on a team tests positive? Does it have to quarantine for 14 days, and what does that do to scheduling?
https://www.espn.com/soccer/german-bunde...of-restart