Viruses are more active in cold weather when vitamin D levels are down . Starting the season early and ending early makes sense to me.

I would just be safe & wait till Spring 2021 - and I'm someone who thinks a lot of these states are taking their shutdowns too far

That's precious, the guy from Kansas not wanting to go play other places in Jan. & Feb., especially when nobody really wants to go play in Kansas during any month of the year.

(05-03-2020 09:46 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I would just be safe & wait till Spring 2021 - and I'm someone who thinks a lot of these states are taking their shutdowns too far

Other than football and cross-country, I don't see any reason not to move fall sports to the spring. This is going to be uncertain for a while, don't wait until the last minute to work on the logistics.

Cross-country would overlap with indoor track and outdoor track in the winter and spring. Football, as we are discussing, is complicated.

Wouldn't it make more sense to start and end football earlier to avoid the predicted "second wave". I say we start up in June and end in October.

No one mentioned the option of just cancelling the entire 2020 season. Not a pretty thought - but I think there is a real chance of that.

(05-03-2020 08:31 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I say play the first month without fans and go from there

P5 teams would play without fans if they had to just so they can keep the TV revenue, which should more than cover the cost of running the football program, even without ticket sales and with donations far below normal levels.

Some other teams might wonder if it's even worth it to pay the expenses of a college football season if they can't sell tickets and collect the game day revenue.

(05-02-2020 01:14 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  He forgot to include the possibility of aliens appearing tomorrow with the cure for COVID.

Don't be ridiculous. If aliens land we'll be playing sclinferb or hoszinch or whatever games THEY play... but it won't be football.

(05-03-2020 02:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  P5 teams would play without fans if they had to just so they can keep the TV revenue, which should more than cover the cost of running the football program, even without ticket sales and with donations far below normal levels.

And risk straining donor relations? I could see this pissing off some fans, honestly. I could also see an opportunity to give select donors/fans some kind of access, like in suites or boxes. Again, a risk.

If the 2020 season going to happen, it will start on time. All the scenarios of things being pushed back or in the Spring is silly. Oxford already has a jump on a vaccine that has shown big progress into halting the virus in lab rats and rabbits. They just got permission to start doing human trials. From the news segment, researchers feel that it will be ready for the public by this September if it continues to show progress when it comes to humans.

EDIT**Oxford as in ENGLAND not those backward asshats in Mississippi**

(05-04-2020 08:54 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  If the 2020 season going to happen, it will start on time. All the scenarios of things being pushed back or in the Spring is silly.

I pretty much agree with this. There is some wiggle room but not much. Logistically, the other proposals just don't work. If football doesn't kick off by mid to late September, it's not happening this year.

But unlike you, I don't think it's happening.

(05-03-2020 05:03 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-03-2020 02:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  P5 teams would play without fans if they had to just so they can keep the TV revenue, which should more than cover the cost of running the football program, even without ticket sales and with donations far below normal levels.

And risk straining donor relations? I could see this pissing off some fans, honestly. I could also see an opportunity to give select donors/fans some kind of access, like in suites or boxes. Again, a risk.

Eh - there will always be complainers, but ultimately, if a P5 athletic department is faced with a choice between $0 in revenue without games being played at all versus at least getting media revenue if games can be played for TV purposes without fans in the stands, that P5 AD will take the latter every single time.

Illinois received around $35 million in football media revenue last year and only around $6 million in ticket revenue. So, while the loss of ticket revenue is significant, it's nowhere near as important as simply getting games onto TV. Our school can adjust to cover a $6 million short-term hole and may not even have to put off long-term projects like building a new hockey/volleyball/gymnastics arena that would also house a new men's hockey program. There's no way that we can cover a $41 million-plus revenue shortfall, though. Virtually no school can cover that without deep permanent scarring and shelving of long-term initiatives.

Granted, it's different for a school like Ohio State (where they got the same $35 million in football media revenue but over $50 million in ticket revenue). In a weird way, the biggest attendance draws are actually more exposed here since their athletic department fixed costs were based heavily on football ticket revenue continuing on indefinitely, whereas a school like Illinois has based its athletic department spending more on Big Ten media revenue that could still be salvaged even if fans can't attend games. In today's world, more P5 schools are going to be closer to the Illinois split (where media revenue now exceeds ticket revenue) than the Ohio State split. Plus, schools like Ohio State and Michigan are still better off taking that $35 million in media revenue even if they can't sell tickets - that's still a significant amount of money to even the wealthiest athletic departments.

It's the same thing for the 4 pro sports leagues - of course no one wants to give up ticket revenue, but the reality is that TV revenue is even more important, so they're going to try to at least preserve that at all costs. That's why you see all of these proposals for games without spectators for MLB in Arizona and/or Florida or the NBA in Las Vegas or Orlando.

Now, it's certainly a different equation for the G5, which have an economic framework more akin to minor league baseball as opposed to Major League Baseball. Outside of their CFP and NCAA Tournament money, they are much more dependent on ticket revenue than TV revenue. That means that holding G5 games without fans just for TV could actually lose money (as some others have intimated). Now, maybe that regular season loss could be made up with the CFP revenue still coming in and that's enough to justify playing those regular season games, but it's not a clear cut decision that all of these athletic directors are going to have to grapple with here.

(05-04-2020 10:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 08:54 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  If the 2020 season going to happen, it will start on time. All the scenarios of things being pushed back or in the Spring is silly.

I pretty much agree with this. There is some wiggle room but not much. Logistically, the other proposals just don't work. If football doesn't kick off by mid to late September, it's not happening this year.

But unlike you, I don't think it's happening.

I sort of waver back and forth. I'll preface this that I'm just speaking out of my a*s here and essentially no one knows how we're going to feel when we get to August and September. Personally, I've gone from thinking in March that it would be impossible for America to be cooped up in our houses for 2 weeks to now thinking that any state that is relaxing restrictions before June is being reckless and will put us back at square one.

If we're talking about games with fans in the stands this year, then I'm extremely pessimistic. Short of a miracle scenario that we have a widely available vaccine sooner than we originally thought, I really can't see how we're getting to a point where you can have any event anywhere with tens of thousands of people gathered in one place for the rest of 2020. In that sense, there's definitely no way that we're going to have a "normal" college football season.

If we're talking about games *without* fans in the stands this year, then I'm a little more optimistic. The TV interests that I noted above are very real for every athletic department, especially in the P5. If there's a way that schools believe that they could eliminate or at least mitigate their liability, then they're going to try to hold some games if at all possible for TV purposes.

If we're talking about adjusting the schedule, I continue to be confused by how it would help health-wise and fear that it could actually hurt. Delaying the football season isn't necessarily going to make things safer if it pushes more of the season in the late-fall/winter months where a second wave of the virus might be worse than if they simply played a normal schedule or even moved the games *earlier* into the summer.

Like the economy as a whole, there's a huge financial pressure for the schools to have football games in some fashion. As with everything surrounding the coronavirus, there's a constant tension between the public health interest and the economic interest.

By the same token, though, student-athletes aren't employees (as the NCAA has gone out of its way to make clear over the years). There's no union that represents them that can agree to having those student-athletes quarantined in Arizona or Florida for several months at a time away from their friends and family so that there can be TV games played in exchange for a salary.

I guess it comes down to whether schools actually allow students to come back onto campus. College dorms are essentially the biggest petri dishes for transmitting viruses next to cruises and nursing homes, albeit with a lower risk younger population. If schools somehow think that it's safe for students to come back and live in dorms, then they have de facto decided that it's safe for students to come back and play football and other sports. On the flip side, if schools aren't letting students back into dorms, then they certainly can't turn around and proclaim that playing sports would be safe.

All in all, it's as clear as mud. I can basically talk myself into and out of any scenario that is thrown out there right now.

(05-04-2020 08:54 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  If the 2020 season going to happen, it will start on time. All the scenarios of things being pushed back or in the Spring is silly. Oxford already has a jump on a vaccine that has shown big progress into halting the virus in lab rats and rabbits. They just got permission to start doing human trials. From the news segment, researchers feel that it will be ready for the public by this September if it continues to show progress when it comes to humans.

EDIT**Oxford as in ENGLAND not those backward asshats in Mississippi**

Even with the head start, and assuming they are already in production of the vaccine in hopes that it will work, the most optimistic projection I've seen is that there could be a million doses ready by September. None of those are likely to be given to athletes or their fans ahead of more important groups like health care workers, worldwide, not just in the US. If having a vaccine widely available is going to be the criterion for playing football, I just don't see it happening in the Fall.

I'm just throwing this in here although to be honest it barely would affect football (more so other international sports like tennis, golf, swimming and track and field). But Purdue announced this morning that they're not going to be able to issue the VISA paperwork incoming 1st-year international students need to get to the campus in the fall. So consequently no new international students will be allowed to be on campus in the fall (just online instruction). Purdue's already announced they're trying everything they can to get classes to start up on campus on schedule in August.

It's possible other schools announce something similar. But again, this mostly will impact the sports with a lot of international athletes.

(05-04-2020 12:28 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I'm just throwing this in here although to be honest it barely would affect football (more so other international sports like tennis, golf, swimming and track and field). But Purdue announced this morning that they're not going to be able to issue the VISA paperwork incoming 1st-year international students need to get to the campus in the fall. So consequently no new international students will be allowed to be on campus in the fall (just online instruction). Purdue's already announced they're trying everything they can to get classes to start up on campus on schedule in August.

It's possible other schools announce something similar. But again, this mostly will impact the sports with a lot of international athletes.

From a financial perspective, it's honestly a LOT more frightening for virtually all US universities that they're going to lose a huge amount of international student tuition dollars for next several years compared to losing a season of football. (To be clear, they're both really bad, but if losing football revenue is the equivalent of a hurricane, then losing international student revenue is the equivalent of a hurricane followed up by a tsunami followed up by flooding that takes years to recover from.)

Think about it: when a college doesn't enroll a freshman international student, that college isn't just losing that student for one year. For all intents and purposes, that college is losing that student for their entire 4-year college career... which means 4 years of lost tuition revenue times hundreds or even thousands of international students that would have otherwise attended each of those colleges... which means a real financial crisis for even the wealthiest universities. So, even if domestic students could all get back to campus in the fall on time in the most optimistic scenario, it's still going to be a financial bloodbath with so many international students (most of whom would be paying full rack rate out-of-state tuition prices out of pocket) staying home.

(05-04-2020 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-03-2020 05:03 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-03-2020 02:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  P5 teams would play without fans if they had to just so they can keep the TV revenue, which should more than cover the cost of running the football program, even without ticket sales and with donations far below normal levels.

And risk straining donor relations? I could see this pissing off some fans, honestly. I could also see an opportunity to give select donors/fans some kind of access, like in suites or boxes. Again, a risk.

Eh - there will always be complainers, but ultimately, if a P5 athletic department is faced with a choice between $0 in revenue without games being played at all versus at least getting media revenue if games can be played for TV purposes without fans in the stands, that P5 AD will take the latter every single time.

Illinois received around $35 million in football media revenue last year and only around $6 million in ticket revenue. So, while the loss of ticket revenue is significant, it's nowhere near as important as simply getting games onto TV. Our school can adjust to cover a $6 million short-term hole and may not even have to put off long-term projects like building a new hockey/volleyball/gymnastics arena that would also house a new men's hockey program. There's no way that we can cover a $41 million-plus revenue shortfall, though. Virtually no school can cover that without deep permanent scarring and shelving of long-term initiatives.

Granted, it's different for a school like Ohio State (where they got the same $35 million in football media revenue but over $50 million in ticket revenue). In a weird way, the biggest attendance draws are actually more exposed here since their athletic department fixed costs were based heavily on football ticket revenue continuing on indefinitely, whereas a school like Illinois has based its athletic department spending more on Big Ten media revenue that could still be salvaged even if fans can't attend games. In today's world, more P5 schools are going to be closer to the Illinois split (where media revenue now exceeds ticket revenue) than the Ohio State split. Plus, schools like Ohio State and Michigan are still better off taking that $35 million in media revenue even if they can't sell tickets - that's still a significant amount of money to even the wealthiest athletic departments.

It's the same thing for the 4 pro sports leagues - of course no one wants to give up ticket revenue, but the reality is that TV revenue is even more important, so they're going to try to at least preserve that at all costs. That's why you see all of these proposals for games without spectators for MLB in Arizona and/or Florida or the NBA in Las Vegas or Orlando.

Now, it's certainly a different equation for the G5, which have an economic framework more akin to minor league baseball as opposed to Major League Baseball. Outside of their CFP and NCAA Tournament money, they are much more dependent on ticket revenue than TV revenue. That means that holding G5 games without fans just for TV could actually lose money (as some others have intimated). Now, maybe that regular season loss could be made up with the CFP revenue still coming in and that's enough to justify playing those regular season games, but it's not a clear cut decision that all of these athletic directors are going to have to grapple with here.

If we have some sort of college football season this fall *without significant fan attendance*, I could see more media money available for everyone by staging more weekday games. For the G5, a handful of games on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday could be the justifiable cost that makes or breaks the AD budget.

(05-04-2020 11:00 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  All in all, it's as clear as mud. I can basically talk myself into and out of any scenario that is thrown out there right now.

IIRC, the FBS commissioners have said no football unless students are back on campus. Now, my kneejerk reaction when i heard that was "no football without fans in the stands". But on second thought, I guess you could have students back on campus but still play games with nobody in the stands.

But, that still means campuses are re-opened to students for the Fall. At the rate states are reopening things, that looks likely. But i suspect that the reality of the situation - that CV19 is by no means whipped - will in the end keep kids off campus this fall, and thus no football.

It's also possible that desperate university presidents could override the commissioners and move forward with football in an online-only environment. But that is extremely risky, and even desperate presidents tend to be risk-averse.

We're all talking out of our arses at this point, btw.

(05-04-2020 01:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 11:00 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  All in all, it's as clear as mud. I can basically talk myself into and out of any scenario that is thrown out there right now.

IIRC, the FBS commissioners have said no football unless students are back on campus. Now, my kneejerk reaction when i heard that was "no football without fans in the stands". But on second thought, I guess you could have students back on campus but still play games with nobody in the stands.

But, that still means campuses are re-opened to students for the Fall. At the rate states are reopening things, that looks likely. But i suspect that the reality of the situation - that CV19 is by no means whipped - will in the end keep kids off campus this fall, and thus no football.

It's also possible that desperate university presidents could override the commissioners and move forward with football in an online-only environment. But that is extremely risky, and even desperate presidents tend to be risk-averse.

We're all talking out of our arses at this point, btw.

Yeah - at least for the next few months, whenever we talk about "sports coming back," I'm under the assumption that means "sports coming back to be shown on TV without fans in the stands."

I agree with you that the presidents are going to be generally risk averse. I think that if they allow students back on campus, then they'll allow football games for at least TV purposes without fans in the stands. However, if they don't allow students back on campus, then it's hard to see how they can allow football. That would essentially be saying, "We don't think it's safe for "normal" students to come back, but it's totally cool for football players to tackle each other in practice and then travel to play against different teams with players from all across the country." My guess is that type of argument wouldn't hold up well in the court of opinion (much less an actual court of law).

(05-04-2020 01:15 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-03-2020 05:03 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-03-2020 02:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  P5 teams would play without fans if they had to just so they can keep the TV revenue, which should more than cover the cost of running the football program, even without ticket sales and with donations far below normal levels.

And risk straining donor relations? I could see this pissing off some fans, honestly. I could also see an opportunity to give select donors/fans some kind of access, like in suites or boxes. Again, a risk.

Eh - there will always be complainers, but ultimately, if a P5 athletic department is faced with a choice between $0 in revenue without games being played at all versus at least getting media revenue if games can be played for TV purposes without fans in the stands, that P5 AD will take the latter every single time.

Illinois received around $35 million in football media revenue last year and only around $6 million in ticket revenue. So, while the loss of ticket revenue is significant, it's nowhere near as important as simply getting games onto TV. Our school can adjust to cover a $6 million short-term hole and may not even have to put off long-term projects like building a new hockey/volleyball/gymnastics arena that would also house a new men's hockey program. There's no way that we can cover a $41 million-plus revenue shortfall, though. Virtually no school can cover that without deep permanent scarring and shelving of long-term initiatives.

Granted, it's different for a school like Ohio State (where they got the same $35 million in football media revenue but over $50 million in ticket revenue). In a weird way, the biggest attendance draws are actually more exposed here since their athletic department fixed costs were based heavily on football ticket revenue continuing on indefinitely, whereas a school like Illinois has based its athletic department spending more on Big Ten media revenue that could still be salvaged even if fans can't attend games. In today's world, more P5 schools are going to be closer to the Illinois split (where media revenue now exceeds ticket revenue) than the Ohio State split. Plus, schools like Ohio State and Michigan are still better off taking that $35 million in media revenue even if they can't sell tickets - that's still a significant amount of money to even the wealthiest athletic departments.

It's the same thing for the 4 pro sports leagues - of course no one wants to give up ticket revenue, but the reality is that TV revenue is even more important, so they're going to try to at least preserve that at all costs. That's why you see all of these proposals for games without spectators for MLB in Arizona and/or Florida or the NBA in Las Vegas or Orlando.

Now, it's certainly a different equation for the G5, which have an economic framework more akin to minor league baseball as opposed to Major League Baseball. Outside of their CFP and NCAA Tournament money, they are much more dependent on ticket revenue than TV revenue. That means that holding G5 games without fans just for TV could actually lose money (as some others have intimated). Now, maybe that regular season loss could be made up with the CFP revenue still coming in and that's enough to justify playing those regular season games, but it's not a clear cut decision that all of these athletic directors are going to have to grapple with here.

If we have some sort of college football season this fall *without significant fan attendance*, I could see more media money available for everyone by staging more weekday games. For the G5, a handful of games on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday could be the justifiable cost that makes or breaks the AD budget.

If I'm running a G5 conference, I'd certainly make that type of sales pitch.

Essentially, no idea is going to get thrown out over the next several months if it could make revenue on paper.