[BostonCard]

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ronavirus/

Going to be interesting to see if there's a football season.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ronavirus/

Going to be interesting to see if there's a football season.

BC

[oregontim]

Damn. So sorry to see this. I'm selfishly hoping for games on TV, even if without fans in stadiums. I agree that this is a bad sign.

[oregontim]

Damn. So sorry to see this. I'm selfishly hoping for games on TV, even if without fans in stadiums. I agree that this is a bad sign.

[Farm93]

And the ethical dilemmas will now emerge.

#1 - Coach Dilemma 
Two players are roughly equivalent on the depth chart.   Do you give the edge in training camp and the depth chart to the player that has already had the coronavirus?

#2 - Player Dilemma
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. 

My guess is with the recent protests a number of athletes will arrive on campus testing positive in the next week or two.

In any event, hope all of these guys recover quickly.

[Farm93]

And the ethical dilemmas will now emerge.

#1 - Coach Dilemma 
Two players are roughly equivalent on the depth chart.   Do you give the edge in training camp and the depth chart to the player that has already had the coronavirus?

#2 - Player Dilemma
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. 

My guess is with the recent protests a number of athletes will arrive on campus testing positive in the next week or two.

In any event, hope all of these guys recover quickly.

[chrisk]

I wondering how Stanford’s football team will look in September with only half of the team back on campus, and half of them being true freshman. Most dorms will close the day before Big Game and players will have to find alternative housing for the last 2 games.

Or will Stanford take over a 50-room hotel To house the players not invited back on campus for fall quarter?

[chrisk]

I wondering how Stanford’s football team will look in September with only half of the team back on campus, and half of them being true freshman. Most dorms will close the day before Big Game and players will have to find alternative housing for the last 2 games.

Or will Stanford take over a 50-room hotel To house the players not invited back on campus for fall quarter?

[2006alum]

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 brobdingnagian lawsuit.

[2006alum]

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 brobdingnagian lawsuit.

[akiddoc]

I wondering how Stanford’s football team will look in September with only half of the team back on campus, and half of them being true freshman.  Most dorms will close the day before Big Game and players will have to find alternative housing for the last 2 games.

Or will Stanford take over a 50-room hotel To house the players not invited back on campus for fall quarter?

#1. You know perfectly well that Stanford will have the athletic teams on campus.
#2. I'm guessing all freshmen will be on campus in the fall, but I do not know that. One way or another, all of the football players will be there. 
#3. You know that Stanford will be sure the athletes stay on campus if the season is still in session.

[akiddoc]

I wondering how Stanford’s football team will look in September with only half of the team back on campus, and half of them being true freshman.  Most dorms will close the day before Big Game and players will have to find alternative housing for the last 2 games.

Or will Stanford take over a 50-room hotel To house the players not invited back on campus for fall quarter?

#1. You know perfectly well that Stanford will have the athletic teams on campus.
#2. I'm guessing all freshmen will be on campus in the fall, but I do not know that. One way or another, all of the football players will be there. 
#3. You know that Stanford will be sure the athletes stay on campus if the season is still in session.

[BostonCard]

I wondering how Stanford’s football team will look in September with only half of the team back on campus, and half of them being true freshman.  Most dorms will close the day before Big Game and players will have to find alternative housing for the last 2 games.

Or will Stanford take over a 50-room hotel To house the players not invited back on campus for fall quarter?

#1. You know perfectly well that Stanford will have the athletic teams on campus.
#2. I'm guessing all freshmen will be on campus in the fall, but I do not know that. One way or another, all of the football players will be there. 
#3. You know that Stanford will be sure the athletes stay on campus if the season is still in session.

Stanford has said that all incoming freshmen and transfer students will be on campus in the fall.  All graduating seniors will be on campus in the spring.  Beyond that, it hasn't said how it's going to allocate students to be on campus.

BC

[BostonCard]

I wondering how Stanford’s football team will look in September with only half of the team back on campus, and half of them being true freshman.  Most dorms will close the day before Big Game and players will have to find alternative housing for the last 2 games.

Or will Stanford take over a 50-room hotel To house the players not invited back on campus for fall quarter?

#1. You know perfectly well that Stanford will have the athletic teams on campus.
#2. I'm guessing all freshmen will be on campus in the fall, but I do not know that. One way or another, all of the football players will be there. 
#3. You know that Stanford will be sure the athletes stay on campus if the season is still in session.

Stanford has said that all incoming freshmen and transfer students will be on campus in the fall.  All graduating seniors will be on campus in the spring.  Beyond that, it hasn't said how it's going to allocate students to be on campus.

BC

[2006alum]

I wondering how Stanford’s football team will look in September with only half of the team back on campus, and half of them being true freshman.  Most dorms will close the day before Big Game and players will have to find alternative housing for the last 2 games.

Or will Stanford take over a 50-room hotel To house the players not invited back on campus for fall quarter?

#1. You know perfectly well that Stanford will have the athletic teams on campus.
#2. I'm guessing all freshmen will be on campus in the fall, but I do not know that. One way or another, all of the football players will be there. 
#3. You know that Stanford will be sure the athletes stay on campus if the season is still in session.

Stanford has said that all incoming freshmen and transfer students will be on campus in the fall.  All graduating seniors will be on campus in the spring.  Beyond that, it hasn't said how it's going to allocate students to be on campus.

BC

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.

[2006alum]

I wondering how Stanford’s football team will look in September with only half of the team back on campus, and half of them being true freshman.  Most dorms will close the day before Big Game and players will have to find alternative housing for the last 2 games.

Or will Stanford take over a 50-room hotel To house the players not invited back on campus for fall quarter?

#1. You know perfectly well that Stanford will have the athletic teams on campus.
#2. I'm guessing all freshmen will be on campus in the fall, but I do not know that. One way or another, all of the football players will be there. 
#3. You know that Stanford will be sure the athletes stay on campus if the season is still in session.

Stanford has said that all incoming freshmen and transfer students will be on campus in the fall.  All graduating seniors will be on campus in the spring.  Beyond that, it hasn't said how it's going to allocate students to be on campus.

BC

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.

[needle]

In all likelihood, it would take the death of a Mack Brown or other aged coach for college football to be cancelled completely.

[needle]

In all likelihood, it would take the death of a Mack Brown or other aged coach for college football to be cancelled completely.

[dabigv13]

Roughly 12,600 Div 1 college football players in US. They are generally young and healthy, but some will end up in ICUs I bet. One or two may die.

[dabigv13]

Roughly 12,600 Div 1 college football players in US. They are generally young and healthy, but some will end up in ICUs I bet. One or two may die.

[Farm93]

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.

---

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.

[Farm93]

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.

---

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.

[76lsjumb]

I'm not entirely sure these ethical dilemmas are particularly out of the ordinary. Thus:

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  a concussion last season although medically cleared to play. Do you elevate the QB with antibodies with no concussion history to starter given the other player may suffer the equivalent of a season ending injury (testing positive for COVID in October another concussion in October)?



I imagine that coaches have had to deal with this type of issue for many, many years, although the current situation certainly adds yet another variable into the mix.

[76lsjumb]

I'm not entirely sure these ethical dilemmas are particularly out of the ordinary. Thus:

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  a concussion last season although medically cleared to play. Do you elevate the QB with antibodies with no concussion history to starter given the other player may suffer the equivalent of a season ending injury (testing positive for COVID in October another concussion in October)?



I imagine that coaches have had to deal with this type of issue for many, many years, although the current situation certainly adds yet another variable into the mix.

[Farm93]

I'm not entirely sure these ethical dilemmas are particularly out of the ordinary. Thus:

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  a concussion last season although medically cleared to play. Do you elevate the QB with antibodies with no concussion history to starter given the other player may suffer the equivalent of a season ending injury (testing positive for COVID in October another concussion in October)?



I imagine that coaches have had to deal with this type of issue for many, many years, although the current situation certainly adds yet another variable into the mix.

That's true.   However a concussion is something a player wants to avoid.

Getting COVID19 antibodies is something a player COULD obtain through exposure.   Some of the players may already have them.   Given that a coach may have a preference for players with antibodies......

[Farm93]

I'm not entirely sure these ethical dilemmas are particularly out of the ordinary. Thus:

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  a concussion last season although medically cleared to play. Do you elevate the QB with antibodies with no concussion history to starter given the other player may suffer the equivalent of a season ending injury (testing positive for COVID in October another concussion in October)?



I imagine that coaches have had to deal with this type of issue for many, many years, although the current situation certainly adds yet another variable into the mix.

That's true.   However a concussion is something a player wants to avoid.

Getting COVID19 antibodies is something a player COULD obtain through exposure.   Some of the players may already have them.   Given that a coach may have a preference for players with antibodies......

[2006alum]

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.

I mean, if that's the picture of "campus life" this fall, with all lecture classes also being held over zoom, what's the point? Might as well throw in the towel. I can't think of any remaining purpose to be "on campus." If that's truly the plan, IMHO the game's not worth the candle.

[2006alum]

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.

I mean, if that's the picture of "campus life" this fall, with all lecture classes also being held over zoom, what's the point? Might as well throw in the towel. I can't think of any remaining purpose to be "on campus." If that's truly the plan, IMHO the game's not worth the candle.

[oldalum]

The letter from Stanford indicates that classes under 50 students will meet in person. And only half the student body will be on campus in each quarter so some class sizes will be smaller than they otherwise would have been; i.e., a class that typically attracted 75 students in the past might get fewer than 50 this year.

[oldalum]

The letter from Stanford indicates that classes under 50 students will meet in person. And only half the student body will be on campus in each quarter so some class sizes will be smaller than they otherwise would have been; i.e., a class that typically attracted 75 students in the past might get fewer than 50 this year.

[Farm93]

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.

I mean, if that's the picture of "campus life" this fall, with all lecture classes also being held over zoom, what's the point? Might as well throw in the towel. I can't think of any remaining purpose to be "on campus." If that's truly the plan, IMHO the game's not worth the candle.

That was how the students were living in March, and how the international students existed until they could leave campus.  I can't imagine the school would work so hard to reduce exposure in classes and dorm rooms, then toss it all away by allowing a capella practices or dorm parties.  

Eating in the dining halls might be OK in SEC land, but my guess is in CA our health officials will realize you can't eat dinner AND keep a mask on your face.  It will be a rather bleak experience, I suspect.

I think any individual student might be OK taking a few more risks, but the campus will be in trouble with an outbreak.   Most of the students grumble that living on campus is a bit like living on an island or in a bubble.   An outbreak could spread quickly in that bubble and an emergency closure has to be something the university will want to avoid even if that means the campus experience lacks the best on campus traditions.

[Farm93]

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.

I mean, if that's the picture of "campus life" this fall, with all lecture classes also being held over zoom, what's the point? Might as well throw in the towel. I can't think of any remaining purpose to be "on campus." If that's truly the plan, IMHO the game's not worth the candle.

That was how the students were living in March, and how the international students existed until they could leave campus.  I can't imagine the school would work so hard to reduce exposure in classes and dorm rooms, then toss it all away by allowing a capella practices or dorm parties.  

Eating in the dining halls might be OK in SEC land, but my guess is in CA our health officials will realize you can't eat dinner AND keep a mask on your face.  It will be a rather bleak experience, I suspect.

I think any individual student might be OK taking a few more risks, but the campus will be in trouble with an outbreak.   Most of the students grumble that living on campus is a bit like living on an island or in a bubble.   An outbreak could spread quickly in that bubble and an emergency closure has to be something the university will want to avoid even if that means the campus experience lacks the best on campus traditions.

[chrisk]

In Asian countries, they have built 3-sided clear plexiglass enclosures around each spot at the dining table so you could still eat in the dining hall but be separated physically from your dining companions.

[chrisk]

In Asian countries, they have built 3-sided clear plexiglass enclosures around each spot at the dining table so you could still eat in the dining hall but be separated physically from your dining companions.

[Farm93]

In Asian countries, they have built 3-sided clear plexiglass enclosures around each spot at the dining table so you could still eat in the dining hall but be separated physically from your dining companions.

I have seen the images of the plexiglass gyms and restaurants in Asia, but the goal remains to isolate non-families from each other.  If replicated here that would mean eating alone in a plexiglass bubble in the dining hall.  

I understand in many Asian cities living space is so impossibly limited that an hour in a plexiglass bubble outside of home sounds appealing, but a Stanford dorm "single" will be a better place for sure.  Eating outside and even eating in a car would also be better IMHO.

Sadly, all of those options would still mean eating isolated or alone.   Which would be a tough way to spend an academic quarter at Stanford.

[Farm93]

In Asian countries, they have built 3-sided clear plexiglass enclosures around each spot at the dining table so you could still eat in the dining hall but be separated physically from your dining companions.

I have seen the images of the plexiglass gyms and restaurants in Asia, but the goal remains to isolate non-families from each other.  If replicated here that would mean eating alone in a plexiglass bubble in the dining hall.  

I understand in many Asian cities living space is so impossibly limited that an hour in a plexiglass bubble outside of home sounds appealing, but a Stanford dorm "single" will be a better place for sure.  Eating outside and even eating in a car would also be better IMHO.

Sadly, all of those options would still mean eating isolated or alone.   Which would be a tough way to spend an academic quarter at Stanford.

[magnus]

All these dilemma scenarios assume immunity (at least through the season) post infection.   While it seems likely there will be at least a stretch of immunity,  it hasn't been proven how long/ effective it'll be and whether you can still be get it (without symptoms) and infect others.

[magnus]

All these dilemma scenarios assume immunity (at least through the season) post infection.   While it seems likely there will be at least a stretch of immunity,  it hasn't been proven how long/ effective it'll be and whether you can still be get it (without symptoms) and infect others.

[Snorlax94]

Some schools re-opened and brought athletes back to campus like it's that easy -- all you have to do is re-open and wish really hard, and then what? Will the Covid-19 virus magically disappear because you want it to?



Before the protests, Covid-19 cases in Alabama were on an upward trajectory. Based on how it's going so far, there could be 3-6 times as many cases in Alabama when the season kicks off. By then, maybe 3-5% of the team, the student body, the people who work on campus, the people all around Tuscaloosa could be infectious. You can't keep a football team safe in that environment.

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.

Right now, normalizing for population sizes, there are 10x as many confirmed cases per day in Alabama than in Santa Clara County, it's rising rapidly in Alabama, and I trust SCC's numbers more because a bad day in SCC is when more than 1% of your tests (but still less than 2%) come back positive.

Is anyone surprised so many players tested positive? Does anyone think they can protect the team with such high numbers in Alabama, with cases growing?

I mean, I really hope they come up with some good therapeutics between now and September. I'm counting on it because I may need it when they re-open elementary schools in SCC.

But from what I can tell, I think it's just kind of weird how everything is progressing as if everything will magically be fine. If Alabama keeps plodding along its current course, it will eventually hit a NY-type of situation, it'll just happen more slowly, so fortunately, there will be time to change course. But given the trends, I don't see how Alabama plays a full season of football this fall, barring some kind of very positive development. *Maybe* if there is a major breakthrough in therapeutics we can just plod through it while minimizing the harm. But absent that -- with only say marginal improvements from therapeutics -- aren't states with rapidly rising cases headed toward another shutdown?

[Snorlax94]

Some schools re-opened and brought athletes back to campus like it's that easy -- all you have to do is re-open and wish really hard, and then what? Will the Covid-19 virus magically disappear because you want it to?



Before the protests, Covid-19 cases in Alabama were on an upward trajectory. Based on how it's going so far, there could be 3-6 times as many cases in Alabama when the season kicks off. By then, maybe 3-5% of the team, the student body, the people who work on campus, the people all around Tuscaloosa could be infectious. You can't keep a football team safe in that environment.

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.

Right now, normalizing for population sizes, there are 10x as many confirmed cases per day in Alabama than in Santa Clara County, it's rising rapidly in Alabama, and I trust SCC's numbers more because a bad day in SCC is when more than 1% of your tests (but still less than 2%) come back positive.

Is anyone surprised so many players tested positive? Does anyone think they can protect the team with such high numbers in Alabama, with cases growing?

I mean, I really hope they come up with some good therapeutics between now and September. I'm counting on it because I may need it when they re-open elementary schools in SCC.

But from what I can tell, I think it's just kind of weird how everything is progressing as if everything will magically be fine. If Alabama keeps plodding along its current course, it will eventually hit a NY-type of situation, it'll just happen more slowly, so fortunately, there will be time to change course. But given the trends, I don't see how Alabama plays a full season of football this fall, barring some kind of very positive development. *Maybe* if there is a major breakthrough in therapeutics we can just plod through it while minimizing the harm. But absent that -- with only say marginal improvements from therapeutics -- aren't states with rapidly rising cases headed toward another shutdown?