[CardinalSagehen]

But I think that what makes football "safe enough" is the extraordinary expenditure of resources to test players.  

I totally understand what you mean - the priorities are messed up.  But this economic argument strikes me as faulty.  I’m pretty sure the “extraordinary expenditure” for daily tests to enable football has an extremely high return on investment vs. the alternative of not playing.  And the return is much more positive than other activities that could be restarted with some investment.

Here are my assumptions:
1) If Stanford plays, it will receive its share of TV and CFP/bowl revenue. 
2) If Stanford chooses not to play in spite of CA and SCC approval, it will miss out on its share of of the revenue pool.
3) Either way, Stanford will continue to bear many "sticky" costs of the program such as David Shaw's comp.  (And no, teejers, I don't think they'll be furloughing David Shaw, so don't get too excited.) 

In theory, Stanford could take the marginal profits from choosing to play football, or the reduction in marginal losses, and plow all that extra money into buying more tests for all students, if this were the University's real priority.

[CardinalSagehen]

But I think that what makes football "safe enough" is the extraordinary expenditure of resources to test players.  

I totally understand what you mean - the priorities are messed up.  But this economic argument strikes me as faulty.  I’m pretty sure the “extraordinary expenditure” for daily tests to enable football has an extremely high return on investment vs. the alternative of not playing.  And the return is much more positive than other activities that could be restarted with some investment.

Here are my assumptions:
1) If Stanford plays, it will receive its share of TV and CFP/bowl revenue. 
2) If Stanford chooses not to play in spite of CA and SCC approval, it will miss out on its share of of the revenue pool.
3) Either way, Stanford will continue to bear many "sticky" costs of the program such as David Shaw's comp.  (And no, teejers, I don't think they'll be furloughing David Shaw, so don't get too excited.) 

In theory, Stanford could take the marginal profits from choosing to play football, or the reduction in marginal losses, and plow all that extra money into buying more tests for all students, if this were the University's real priority.

[BostonCard]

But I think that what makes football "safe enough" is the extraordinary expenditure of resources to test players.  

I totally understand what you mean - the priorities are messed up.  But this economic argument strikes me as faulty.  I’m pretty sure the “extraordinary expenditure” for daily tests to enable football has an extremely high return on investment vs. the alternative of not playing.  And the return is much more positive than other activities that could be restarted with some investment.

There are estimates that the hit to students' education will cost on the order of $60 - $80K per student in terms of lifetime earnings.  That's for K-12 students, so maybe a bit less for Stanford students (or maybe more, since if it is a fixed proportion of earnings, it might affect high earners more).  Moreover without Stanford having on campus activities, there is always the possibility that the next Unicorn that would have been hatched amongst a group of friends late one night in a dorm common room won't get to see the light of day, costing the economy billions.

Yes, the short term return is much greater for football, but it is ultimately a game, and it leaves very little lasting value (with all apologies to Phogge's film vault, or is it tape).

BC

[BostonCard]

But I think that what makes football "safe enough" is the extraordinary expenditure of resources to test players.  

I totally understand what you mean - the priorities are messed up.  But this economic argument strikes me as faulty.  I’m pretty sure the “extraordinary expenditure” for daily tests to enable football has an extremely high return on investment vs. the alternative of not playing.  And the return is much more positive than other activities that could be restarted with some investment.

There are estimates that the hit to students' education will cost on the order of $60 - $80K per student in terms of lifetime earnings.  That's for K-12 students, so maybe a bit less for Stanford students (or maybe more, since if it is a fixed proportion of earnings, it might affect high earners more).  Moreover without Stanford having on campus activities, there is always the possibility that the next Unicorn that would have been hatched amongst a group of friends late one night in a dorm common room won't get to see the light of day, costing the economy billions.

Yes, the short term return is much greater for football, but it is ultimately a game, and it leaves very little lasting value (with all apologies to Phogge's film vault, or is it tape).

BC

[donkey687]

But I think that what makes football "safe enough" is the extraordinary expenditure of resources to test players.  

I totally understand what you mean - the priorities are messed up.  But this economic argument strikes me as faulty.  I’m pretty sure the “extraordinary expenditure” for daily tests to enable football has an extremely high return on investment vs. the alternative of not playing.  And the return is much more positive than other activities that could be restarted with some investment.

Here are my assumptions:
1) If Stanford plays, it will receive its share of TV and CFP/bowl revenue. 
2) If Stanford chooses not to play in spite of CA and SCC approval, it will miss out on its share of of the revenue pool.
3) Either way, Stanford will continue to bear many "sticky" costs of the program such as David Shaw's comp.  (And no, teejers, I don't think they'll be furloughing David Shaw, so don't get too excited.) 

In theory, Stanford could take the marginal profits from choosing to play football, or the reduction in marginal losses, and plow all that extra money into buying more tests for all students, if this were the University's real priority.

Stanford is too risk averse to bring all the students back. Money for tests or having access to lots of tests was not an issue.  Covid risk of thousands of students on campus is much greater than a few hundred that is why having some athletes and lab workers and foreign students on campus is manageable risk.  I don't view it as a double standard as you are comparing activities of different risk profiles. The reason not to play football is out of principle which is a form of elitism in my book.  Stanford could rely on principle and refuse to play football this year but it wouldn't be due to unmanageable risk. It is because they feel they are holier than thou and want to stand above everyone else. I think there would be long term damage to the football program and it would be a disservice to the players and coaches who want to play and would be the only major conference team denied the ability to play. Hopefully, pragmatism can win out.

[donkey687]

But I think that what makes football "safe enough" is the extraordinary expenditure of resources to test players.  

I totally understand what you mean - the priorities are messed up.  But this economic argument strikes me as faulty.  I’m pretty sure the “extraordinary expenditure” for daily tests to enable football has an extremely high return on investment vs. the alternative of not playing.  And the return is much more positive than other activities that could be restarted with some investment.

Here are my assumptions:
1) If Stanford plays, it will receive its share of TV and CFP/bowl revenue. 
2) If Stanford chooses not to play in spite of CA and SCC approval, it will miss out on its share of of the revenue pool.
3) Either way, Stanford will continue to bear many "sticky" costs of the program such as David Shaw's comp.  (And no, teejers, I don't think they'll be furloughing David Shaw, so don't get too excited.) 

In theory, Stanford could take the marginal profits from choosing to play football, or the reduction in marginal losses, and plow all that extra money into buying more tests for all students, if this were the University's real priority.

Stanford is too risk averse to bring all the students back. Money for tests or having access to lots of tests was not an issue.  Covid risk of thousands of students on campus is much greater than a few hundred that is why having some athletes and lab workers and foreign students on campus is manageable risk.  I don't view it as a double standard as you are comparing activities of different risk profiles. The reason not to play football is out of principle which is a form of elitism in my book.  Stanford could rely on principle and refuse to play football this year but it wouldn't be due to unmanageable risk. It is because they feel they are holier than thou and want to stand above everyone else. I think there would be long term damage to the football program and it would be a disservice to the players and coaches who want to play and would be the only major conference team denied the ability to play. Hopefully, pragmatism can win out.

[CardinalSagehen]

But I think that what makes football "safe enough" is the extraordinary expenditure of resources to test players.  

I totally understand what you mean - the priorities are messed up.  But this economic argument strikes me as faulty.  I’m pretty sure the “extraordinary expenditure” for daily tests to enable football has an extremely high return on investment vs. the alternative of not playing.  And the return is much more positive than other activities that could be restarted with some investment.

There are estimates that the hit to students' education will cost on the order of $60 - $80K per student in terms of lifetime earnings.  That's for K-12 students, so maybe a bit less for Stanford students (or maybe more, since if it is a fixed proportion of earnings, it might affect high earners more).  Moreover without Stanford having on campus activities, there is always the possibility that the next Unicorn that would have been hatched amongst a group of friends late one night in a dorm common room won't get to see the light of day, costing the economy billions.

Yes, the short term return is much greater for football, but it is ultimately a game, and it leaves very little lasting value (with all apologies to Phogge's film vault, or is it tape).

BC

Do you think football with daily testing diminishes the ability to have other students on campus safely?  I see them as mostly independent decisions, not either/or.  If either or both are safe enough and feasible enough, either or both should occur.  If either or both are unsafe or infeasible, either or both should not occur.  If playing football with daily testing causes having other students on campus to be unsafe, or stands directly in its way on a practical level, football should not be played.  I do not see that as the case right now. 

I think it’s a false choice between football and other students on campus right now.

[CardinalSagehen]

But I think that what makes football "safe enough" is the extraordinary expenditure of resources to test players.  

I totally understand what you mean - the priorities are messed up.  But this economic argument strikes me as faulty.  I’m pretty sure the “extraordinary expenditure” for daily tests to enable football has an extremely high return on investment vs. the alternative of not playing.  And the return is much more positive than other activities that could be restarted with some investment.

There are estimates that the hit to students' education will cost on the order of $60 - $80K per student in terms of lifetime earnings.  That's for K-12 students, so maybe a bit less for Stanford students (or maybe more, since if it is a fixed proportion of earnings, it might affect high earners more).  Moreover without Stanford having on campus activities, there is always the possibility that the next Unicorn that would have been hatched amongst a group of friends late one night in a dorm common room won't get to see the light of day, costing the economy billions.

Yes, the short term return is much greater for football, but it is ultimately a game, and it leaves very little lasting value (with all apologies to Phogge's film vault, or is it tape).

BC

Do you think football with daily testing diminishes the ability to have other students on campus safely?  I see them as mostly independent decisions, not either/or.  If either or both are safe enough and feasible enough, either or both should occur.  If either or both are unsafe or infeasible, either or both should not occur.  If playing football with daily testing causes having other students on campus to be unsafe, or stands directly in its way on a practical level, football should not be played.  I do not see that as the case right now. 

I think it’s a false choice between football and other students on campus right now.

[chrisk]

But I think that what makes football "safe enough" is the extraordinary expenditure of resources to test players.  

I totally understand what you mean - the priorities are messed up.  But this economic argument strikes me as faulty.  I’m pretty sure the “extraordinary expenditure” for daily tests to enable football has an extremely high return on investment vs. the alternative of not playing.  And the return is much more positive than other activities that could be restarted with some investment.

There are estimates that the hit to students' education will cost on the order of $60 - $80K per student in terms of lifetime earnings.  That's for K-12 students, so maybe a bit less for Stanford students (or maybe more, since if it is a fixed proportion of earnings, it might affect high earners more).  Moreover without Stanford having on campus activities, there is always the possibility that the next Unicorn that would have been hatched amongst a group of friends late one night in a dorm common room won't get to see the light of day, costing the economy billions.

Yes, the short term return is much greater for football, but it is ultimately a game, and it leaves very little lasting value (with all apologies to Phogge's film vault, or is it tape).

BC

Do you think football with daily testing diminishes the ability to have other students on campus safely?  I see them as mostly independent decisions, not either/or.  If either or both are safe enough and feasible enough, either or both should occur.  If either or both are unsafe or infeasible, either or both should not occur.  If playing football with daily testing causes having other students on campus to be unsafe, or stands directly in its way on a practical level, football should not be played.  I do not see that as the case right now. 

I think it’s a false choice between football and other students on campus right now.

The students on campus are all or mostly all living in apartments. Most undergrads are not on campus because they would be living in dorms. The earlier plan was to have half the undergrads on campus living one person per dorm room.

[chrisk]

But I think that what makes football "safe enough" is the extraordinary expenditure of resources to test players.  

I totally understand what you mean - the priorities are messed up.  But this economic argument strikes me as faulty.  I’m pretty sure the “extraordinary expenditure” for daily tests to enable football has an extremely high return on investment vs. the alternative of not playing.  And the return is much more positive than other activities that could be restarted with some investment.

There are estimates that the hit to students' education will cost on the order of $60 - $80K per student in terms of lifetime earnings.  That's for K-12 students, so maybe a bit less for Stanford students (or maybe more, since if it is a fixed proportion of earnings, it might affect high earners more).  Moreover without Stanford having on campus activities, there is always the possibility that the next Unicorn that would have been hatched amongst a group of friends late one night in a dorm common room won't get to see the light of day, costing the economy billions.

Yes, the short term return is much greater for football, but it is ultimately a game, and it leaves very little lasting value (with all apologies to Phogge's film vault, or is it tape).

BC

Do you think football with daily testing diminishes the ability to have other students on campus safely?  I see them as mostly independent decisions, not either/or.  If either or both are safe enough and feasible enough, either or both should occur.  If either or both are unsafe or infeasible, either or both should not occur.  If playing football with daily testing causes having other students on campus to be unsafe, or stands directly in its way on a practical level, football should not be played.  I do not see that as the case right now. 

I think it’s a false choice between football and other students on campus right now.

The students on campus are all or mostly all living in apartments. Most undergrads are not on campus because they would be living in dorms. The earlier plan was to have half the undergrads on campus living one person per dorm room.

[Snorlax94]

We're worrying an awful lot from a report about ongoing discussions. No one's voted yet. If Stanford raised concerns, well, that's what discussions are for.

I do think the issue of amateurism is an important one. Stanford is a place of champions, many of them in the Olympics. If NCAA football and basketball student athletes get paid, can the swimmers, gymnasts, water polo and volleyball players still participate in the Olympics if the NCAA relinquishes its amateur status?

It makes sense that all the concerns -- safety, amateur status, housing, maintaining a true "student athlete" experience, equality between students, transportation, legal requirements -- need to get hashed out.


I personally have been surprised there is such a kerfuffle about college athletes getting accommodations on-campus during Covid. I think Stanford has said some students can be permitted back on campus. If a PhD student is in the middle of her dissertation and needs to access the libraries, or if a researcher is in the middle of conducting Covid-related research, it makes sense for them to have access to the campus to use labs, equipment, or other facilities that their activities may require. So I personally don't think it's inconsistent or unequal for student athletes to have access to the campus. The gyms, fields and equipment are part of the unique resources their activities require. 

I trust Stanford to be very able to determine whether some students can return to campus safely, whether football players can compete safely, and what all the legal/eligibility issues might be.  I trust they're representing their concerns in good faith. I don't think they're doing this as a "PR stunt", or to "be elitist," or because they are irrational, uninformed and want to destroy college athletics or Stanford's exceptional contributions.

I can wait to hear all the facts first.

[Snorlax94]

We're worrying an awful lot from a report about ongoing discussions. No one's voted yet. If Stanford raised concerns, well, that's what discussions are for.

I do think the issue of amateurism is an important one. Stanford is a place of champions, many of them in the Olympics. If NCAA football and basketball student athletes get paid, can the swimmers, gymnasts, water polo and volleyball players still participate in the Olympics if the NCAA relinquishes its amateur status?

It makes sense that all the concerns -- safety, amateur status, housing, maintaining a true "student athlete" experience, equality between students, transportation, legal requirements -- need to get hashed out.


I personally have been surprised there is such a kerfuffle about college athletes getting accommodations on-campus during Covid. I think Stanford has said some students can be permitted back on campus. If a PhD student is in the middle of her dissertation and needs to access the libraries, or if a researcher is in the middle of conducting Covid-related research, it makes sense for them to have access to the campus to use labs, equipment, or other facilities that their activities may require. So I personally don't think it's inconsistent or unequal for student athletes to have access to the campus. The gyms, fields and equipment are part of the unique resources their activities require. 

I trust Stanford to be very able to determine whether some students can return to campus safely, whether football players can compete safely, and what all the legal/eligibility issues might be.  I trust they're representing their concerns in good faith. I don't think they're doing this as a "PR stunt", or to "be elitist," or because they are irrational, uninformed and want to destroy college athletics or Stanford's exceptional contributions.

I can wait to hear all the facts first.

[teejers1]

If regular students could be tested with the same intensity as football players, would we be able to restart in person classes?

Not even the same intensity of testing would be required. Vanderbilt, for example, which has a mix of in-person and Zoom classes, is doing fine with once-weekly testing of all undergrads: last week the positive rate was 0.31% (20 new infections), down from 0.46% the week before, and they have good contact tracing with quarantine housing for positives and isolation for exposeds. Housing limitations might prevent all Stanford students from returning, but surely 2 classes at a time could come. I suspect the obstacle for Stanford now is that it made its decision and it's too late to reverse it for fall quarter. I would be disappointed if they don't do something different for winter quarter. Online learning is inferior to in-person, and online socializing is inferior to socially distanced in-person.

Not just Vandy.  I've posted Notre Dame dashboard previously (and Northeastern is on it, too).  

https://here.nd.edu/our-approach/dashboard/

ND's trend looks great, particularly if you consider they are 2 weeks into home football games and in-person classes (for at least a week now).

It's a matter of will, discipline, and resources (the last of which I think most of us agree Stanford possesses).

As for the football decision, can we at least be candid and recognize that Stanford "sent the kids home" (or more directly, disallowed on campus workouts) which other schools did not do.  Thus, Stanford is the least prepared team to re-start football.  That is so Stanford, especially under this regime.  And truthfully, I don't really care whether Stanford plays or not (or whether the Pac plays at all or plays without Stanford).  Especially with Stanford lagging, I don't see how the Cardinal can have a meaningful season, nor do I see how a November 7, 2020 season start works for any teams.  

Of course, I also do not see the magic behind the December 20, 2020 "deadline" of completing the season (i.e., the day before the CFP announcement).  Maybe it has to do with all the bowls (I heard some commentators say they were happening, even if they pitted sub .500 teams against each other).  But it seems to me the Big Boys can play through the year and then pick teams.  Hell, in 2020, there are no "rules" . . . are there?

Add:  colleague of mine advised that ND football team has 7 positive Covid tests and is postponing this Saturday's matchup.  Wonder if game will ultimately be canceled.  Also, this kind of thing is to be expected, which makes any decision to start playing on November 7, 2020 completely mind-boggling.  You need to build in some leeway for canceled/postponed games, and I don't see an 11/7 starting date doing that.

Also wonder if ND team is housed separately or with the rest of the student body.  7 on just the team sounds like an alarming number.

[teejers1]

If regular students could be tested with the same intensity as football players, would we be able to restart in person classes?

Not even the same intensity of testing would be required. Vanderbilt, for example, which has a mix of in-person and Zoom classes, is doing fine with once-weekly testing of all undergrads: last week the positive rate was 0.31% (20 new infections), down from 0.46% the week before, and they have good contact tracing with quarantine housing for positives and isolation for exposeds. Housing limitations might prevent all Stanford students from returning, but surely 2 classes at a time could come. I suspect the obstacle for Stanford now is that it made its decision and it's too late to reverse it for fall quarter. I would be disappointed if they don't do something different for winter quarter. Online learning is inferior to in-person, and online socializing is inferior to socially distanced in-person.

Not just Vandy.  I've posted Notre Dame dashboard previously (and Northeastern is on it, too).  

https://here.nd.edu/our-approach/dashboard/

ND's trend looks great, particularly if you consider they are 2 weeks into home football games and in-person classes (for at least a week now).

It's a matter of will, discipline, and resources (the last of which I think most of us agree Stanford possesses).

As for the football decision, can we at least be candid and recognize that Stanford "sent the kids home" (or more directly, disallowed on campus workouts) which other schools did not do.  Thus, Stanford is the least prepared team to re-start football.  That is so Stanford, especially under this regime.  And truthfully, I don't really care whether Stanford plays or not (or whether the Pac plays at all or plays without Stanford).  Especially with Stanford lagging, I don't see how the Cardinal can have a meaningful season, nor do I see how a November 7, 2020 season start works for any teams.  

Of course, I also do not see the magic behind the December 20, 2020 "deadline" of completing the season (i.e., the day before the CFP announcement).  Maybe it has to do with all the bowls (I heard some commentators say they were happening, even if they pitted sub .500 teams against each other).  But it seems to me the Big Boys can play through the year and then pick teams.  Hell, in 2020, there are no "rules" . . . are there?

Add:  colleague of mine advised that ND football team has 7 positive Covid tests and is postponing this Saturday's matchup.  Wonder if game will ultimately be canceled.  Also, this kind of thing is to be expected, which makes any decision to start playing on November 7, 2020 completely mind-boggling.  You need to build in some leeway for canceled/postponed games, and I don't see an 11/7 starting date doing that.

Also wonder if ND team is housed separately or with the rest of the student body.  7 on just the team sounds like an alarming number.

[old spanish trail]

If regular students could be tested with the same intensity as football players, would we be able to restart in person classes?

Not even the same intensity of testing would be required. Vanderbilt, for example, which has a mix of in-person and Zoom classes, is doing fine with once-weekly testing of all undergrads: last week the positive rate was 0.31% (20 new infections), down from 0.46% the week before, and they have good contact tracing with quarantine housing for positives and isolation for exposeds. Housing limitations might prevent all Stanford students from returning, but surely 2 classes at a time could come. I suspect the obstacle for Stanford now is that it made its decision and it's too late to reverse it for fall quarter. I would be disappointed if they don't do something different for winter quarter. Online learning is inferior to in-person, and online socializing is inferior to socially distanced in-person.

Not just Vandy.  I've posted Notre Dame dashboard previously (and Northeastern is on it, too).  

https://here.nd.edu/our-approach/dashboard/

ND's trend looks great, particularly if you consider they are 2 weeks into home football games and in-person classes (for at least a week now).

It's a matter of will, discipline, and resources (the last of which I think most of us agree Stanford possesses).

As for the football decision, can we at least be candid and recognize that Stanford "sent the kids home" (or more directly, disallowed on campus workouts) which other schools did not do.  Thus, Stanford is the least prepared team to re-start football.  That is so Stanford, especially under this regime.  And truthfully, I don't really care whether Stanford plays or not (or whether the Pac plays at all or plays without Stanford).  Especially with Stanford lagging, I don't see how the Cardinal can have a meaningful season, nor do I see how a November 7, 2020 season start works for any teams.  

Of course, I also do not see the magic behind the December 20, 2020 "deadline" of completing the season (i.e., the day before the CFP announcement).  Maybe it has to do with all the bowls (I heard some commentators say they were happening, even if they pitted sub .500 teams against each other).  But it seems to me the Big Boys can play through the year and then pick teams.  Hell, in 2020, there are no "rules" . . . are there?

Add:  colleague of mine advised that ND football team has 7 positive Covid tests and is postponing this Saturday's matchup.  Wonder if game will ultimately be canceled.  Also, this kind of thing is to be expected, which makes any decision to start playing on November 7, 2020 completely mind-boggling.  You need to build in some leeway for canceled/postponed games, and I don't see an 11/7 starting date doing that.

Also wonder if ND team is housed separately or with the rest of the student body.  7 on just the team sounds like an alarming number.

14 ND players quarantining or separated. Game postponed.

[old spanish trail]

If regular students could be tested with the same intensity as football players, would we be able to restart in person classes?

Not even the same intensity of testing would be required. Vanderbilt, for example, which has a mix of in-person and Zoom classes, is doing fine with once-weekly testing of all undergrads: last week the positive rate was 0.31% (20 new infections), down from 0.46% the week before, and they have good contact tracing with quarantine housing for positives and isolation for exposeds. Housing limitations might prevent all Stanford students from returning, but surely 2 classes at a time could come. I suspect the obstacle for Stanford now is that it made its decision and it's too late to reverse it for fall quarter. I would be disappointed if they don't do something different for winter quarter. Online learning is inferior to in-person, and online socializing is inferior to socially distanced in-person.

Not just Vandy.  I've posted Notre Dame dashboard previously (and Northeastern is on it, too).  

https://here.nd.edu/our-approach/dashboard/

ND's trend looks great, particularly if you consider they are 2 weeks into home football games and in-person classes (for at least a week now).

It's a matter of will, discipline, and resources (the last of which I think most of us agree Stanford possesses).

As for the football decision, can we at least be candid and recognize that Stanford "sent the kids home" (or more directly, disallowed on campus workouts) which other schools did not do.  Thus, Stanford is the least prepared team to re-start football.  That is so Stanford, especially under this regime.  And truthfully, I don't really care whether Stanford plays or not (or whether the Pac plays at all or plays without Stanford).  Especially with Stanford lagging, I don't see how the Cardinal can have a meaningful season, nor do I see how a November 7, 2020 season start works for any teams.  

Of course, I also do not see the magic behind the December 20, 2020 "deadline" of completing the season (i.e., the day before the CFP announcement).  Maybe it has to do with all the bowls (I heard some commentators say they were happening, even if they pitted sub .500 teams against each other).  But it seems to me the Big Boys can play through the year and then pick teams.  Hell, in 2020, there are no "rules" . . . are there?

Add:  colleague of mine advised that ND football team has 7 positive Covid tests and is postponing this Saturday's matchup.  Wonder if game will ultimately be canceled.  Also, this kind of thing is to be expected, which makes any decision to start playing on November 7, 2020 completely mind-boggling.  You need to build in some leeway for canceled/postponed games, and I don't see an 11/7 starting date doing that.

Also wonder if ND team is housed separately or with the rest of the student body.  7 on just the team sounds like an alarming number.

14 ND players quarantining or separated. Game postponed.

[Papa John]

Looks like they might try ND-Wake Forest on October 3. Both teams have byes that week.

[Papa John]

Looks like they might try ND-Wake Forest on October 3. Both teams have byes that week.

[teejers1]

Looks like they might try ND-Wake Forest on October 3. Both teams have byes that week.

Apparently that fits within ACC's 10 day quarantine period.

The Big 10 has 21 days (IIUTC).  So a positive testee (and there will be many) will miss 3 games.  The Big__ can't just postpone games whenever they have a few positive testees - which will happen . . . a lot - can they?  Is hte protocol that all positive testees out for 21 days and then potential exposed out for 3-5 days, to ensure negative tests?  I guess that would limit the forfeit risk, but still . . .

[teejers1]

Looks like they might try ND-Wake Forest on October 3. Both teams have byes that week.

Apparently that fits within ACC's 10 day quarantine period.

The Big 10 has 21 days (IIUTC).  So a positive testee (and there will be many) will miss 3 games.  The Big__ can't just postpone games whenever they have a few positive testees - which will happen . . . a lot - can they?  Is hte protocol that all positive testees out for 21 days and then potential exposed out for 3-5 days, to ensure negative tests?  I guess that would limit the forfeit risk, but still . . .

[Spiny_Norman]

Boulder has now prohibited gatherings of any size for people 18 to 22 years old. This will prohibit the CU team from any activities, including practice. Won't the team just go to Denver or Aurora or some other nearby city to practice? Of course, this also means no home games for CU until the order is lifted.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/BonaguraESPN/status/1309166868985507843[/twitter]

[Spiny_Norman]

Boulder has now prohibited gatherings of any size for people 18 to 22 years old. This will prohibit the CU team from any activities, including practice. Won't the team just go to Denver or Aurora or some other nearby city to practice? Of course, this also means no home games for CU until the order is lifted.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/BonaguraESPN/status/1309166868985507843[/twitter]

[CardinalSagehen]

Boulder has now prohibited gatherings of any size for people 18 to 22 years old. This will prohibit the CU team from any activities, including practice. Won't the team just go to Denver or Aurora or some other nearby city to practice? Of course, this also means no home games for CU until the order is lifted.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/BonaguraESPN/status/1309166868985507843[/twitter]

This piqued my curiosity to see how bad the Covid-19 stats look in Boulder currently.  The 5-day average for new cases in Boulder County is 139, and the population is only 326,000, so they are currently seeing 43 new cases per 100,000 per day.  For perspective, that's about 6 times worse than we're seeing in Santa Clara County right now. 

Below is a picture that tells the story.  This probably belongs on the Covid board now, although I think developments like this may have a direct bearing on the Pac-12's decision meeting today.  These sort of outbreaks are inevitably going to happen in some Pac-12 locations and among some teams during any form of a football season; if the conference is not comfortable working around these issues, postponing some games, having some teams play while others don't, etc., they should just skip the season.  It's definitely going to be impossible to conduct a season without significant disruptions right now, as we're seeing in all the other conferences, even in places where local restrictions are super loose.

[CardinalSagehen]

Boulder has now prohibited gatherings of any size for people 18 to 22 years old. This will prohibit the CU team from any activities, including practice. Won't the team just go to Denver or Aurora or some other nearby city to practice? Of course, this also means no home games for CU until the order is lifted.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/BonaguraESPN/status/1309166868985507843[/twitter]

This piqued my curiosity to see how bad the Covid-19 stats look in Boulder currently.  The 5-day average for new cases in Boulder County is 139, and the population is only 326,000, so they are currently seeing 43 new cases per 100,000 per day.  For perspective, that's about 6 times worse than we're seeing in Santa Clara County right now. 

Below is a picture that tells the story.  This probably belongs on the Covid board now, although I think developments like this may have a direct bearing on the Pac-12's decision meeting today.  These sort of outbreaks are inevitably going to happen in some Pac-12 locations and among some teams during any form of a football season; if the conference is not comfortable working around these issues, postponing some games, having some teams play while others don't, etc., they should just skip the season.  It's definitely going to be impossible to conduct a season without significant disruptions right now, as we're seeing in all the other conferences, even in places where local restrictions are super loose.

[Papa John]

Here's a Denver Post story that gives some more context on what is going on in Boulder in anticipation of Pac-12 restarting at least some fall sports:

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/09/23/cu...k-largest/

About 1200 students and 12 staff infected. It's the spread to the staff that has me most concerned, of course, since I am an academic staff member at my local UC campus. The article notes that CU is going to remote learning for two weeks, but the challenge will be the reduction of social gatherings amongst the students. The prohibition for 18-22 year-olds is for 14 days, effective this afternoon, although I'm sure it could be extended.

If CU football can't start practice until October 8, I can't imagine them ready to play before mid-November at the earliest. But given that there's an outbreak on campus that needs to be contained, that's not really the top concern right now, of course.

[Papa John]

Here's a Denver Post story that gives some more context on what is going on in Boulder in anticipation of Pac-12 restarting at least some fall sports:

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/09/23/cu...k-largest/

About 1200 students and 12 staff infected. It's the spread to the staff that has me most concerned, of course, since I am an academic staff member at my local UC campus. The article notes that CU is going to remote learning for two weeks, but the challenge will be the reduction of social gatherings amongst the students. The prohibition for 18-22 year-olds is for 14 days, effective this afternoon, although I'm sure it could be extended.

If CU football can't start practice until October 8, I can't imagine them ready to play before mid-November at the earliest. But given that there's an outbreak on campus that needs to be contained, that's not really the top concern right now, of course.

[CardinalSagehen]

Here's the latest.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/1309189615220224000?s=20[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/1309196055397818368?s=20[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/1309205214793068544?s=20[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/1309217891217149952?s=20[/tweet]

Say what you will about Jon Wilner - I know many of us have felt at times that his observations on Stanford Football are less well informed than our own.  But this type of story is precisely in his wheelhouse, and his reporting has been prolific, timely and reliable so far.

R.J. Abeytia has been pretty much the opposite - he seems likable, and I trust his takes on Stanford Football. It's clear that he watches every down. But his reporting around this particular story has been speculative, sensationalist and unreliable.

I suppose the final test will be today around 5PM.

[CardinalSagehen]

Here's the latest.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/1309189615220224000?s=20[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/1309196055397818368?s=20[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/1309205214793068544?s=20[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/1309217891217149952?s=20[/tweet]

Say what you will about Jon Wilner - I know many of us have felt at times that his observations on Stanford Football are less well informed than our own.  But this type of story is precisely in his wheelhouse, and his reporting has been prolific, timely and reliable so far.

R.J. Abeytia has been pretty much the opposite - he seems likable, and I trust his takes on Stanford Football. It's clear that he watches every down. But his reporting around this particular story has been speculative, sensationalist and unreliable.

I suppose the final test will be today around 5PM.

[BostonCard]

R.J. Abeytia has been pretty much the opposite - he seems likable, and I trust his takes on Stanford Football. It's clear that he watches every down. But his reporting around this particular story has been speculative, sensationalist and unreliable.

Unless, of course, Stanford nixes an agreement (I don't think it will).

BC

[BostonCard]

R.J. Abeytia has been pretty much the opposite - he seems likable, and I trust his takes on Stanford Football. It's clear that he watches every down. But his reporting around this particular story has been speculative, sensationalist and unreliable.

Unless, of course, Stanford nixes an agreement (I don't think it will).

BC

[magnus]

Wilner reports Pac12 voted to play. 

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/1309265756995989504?s=20[/tweet]

[magnus]

Wilner reports Pac12 voted to play. 

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/1309265756995989504?s=20[/tweet]

[BostonCard]

Football will start in November.

BC

[BostonCard]

Football will start in November.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

First game will be Nov. 6, so I guess they will be playing Friday nights.

A seven game schedule so season ends Dec. 18. Clearly, the driving force behind the hurry up and play and only play 7 games is for the College Football Playoff, and beyond that, the Rose Bowl.

Why the hell not play more conference games, not rush back, forget the playoff and Rose Bowl for a year?

[OutsiderFan]

First game will be Nov. 6, so I guess they will be playing Friday nights.

A seven game schedule so season ends Dec. 18. Clearly, the driving force behind the hurry up and play and only play 7 games is for the College Football Playoff, and beyond that, the Rose Bowl.

Why the hell not play more conference games, not rush back, forget the playoff and Rose Bowl for a year?

[BobK]

Money drives us all outsider.

[BobK]

Money drives us all outsider.

[JustAnotherFan]

First game will be Nov. 6, so I guess they will be playing Friday nights.

A seven game schedule so season ends Dec. 18. Clearly, the driving force behind the hurry up and play and only play 7 games is for the College Football Playoff, and beyond that, the Rose Bowl.

Why the hell not play more conference games, not rush back, forget the playoff and Rose Bowl for a year?

I agree. Rushing to try to make the CFP is a joke knowing that they're not going to give a spot to the Pac-12 anyway.

[JustAnotherFan]

First game will be Nov. 6, so I guess they will be playing Friday nights.

A seven game schedule so season ends Dec. 18. Clearly, the driving force behind the hurry up and play and only play 7 games is for the College Football Playoff, and beyond that, the Rose Bowl.

Why the hell not play more conference games, not rush back, forget the playoff and Rose Bowl for a year?

I agree. Rushing to try to make the CFP is a joke knowing that they're not going to give a spot to the Pac-12 anyway.