(03-31-2020 08:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2020 08:39 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I suspect if they don’t think they can get 8 games in they don’t play.

There are not many programs making more from media rights than attendance, sponsorships and donations (generally tied to seating).

NFL and NBA and probably MLB given choice of no media revenue or no gate revenue will pick no gate. College football playing empty stadiums is much bigger hit as percentage of income.

I don't expect a season at this point. I think COVID19 will peak in June and the aftermath will linger through August and nobody will have the stomach (and rightfully so) for risking a resurgence in the Fall.

I wish you and your wife the best and safe time with close family! But, I don't expect much to change. November may the first time ever I vote absentee.

Arkansas has no reason required absentee voting by mail. I’m likely to do that even though rarely have a line at my polling place.

(03-31-2020 02:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-31-2020 01:55 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-31-2020 11:15 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-28-2020 06:40 AM)RobtheAggie Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 10:14 PM)johnintx Wrote:  College football in July? In the South? Ouch.

That would be desperation. What about games in Tempe,AZ in July and August?

All of a sudden, half the teams want to be on "Pac-12 After Dark"!

(03-28-2020 06:40 AM)RobtheAggie Wrote:  If they only play a conference schedule, what does ND, Army, BYU, Liberty, UMass, UConn and NMSU do?

I'm sure if Notre Dame petitioned the ACC to go all-in for football immediately that the conference would be willing to re-do the schedule for them, even at this late date.

I am doubtful about a 2020 college football season.

It will be difficult.

They can talk about playing college football in empty stadiums, but many schools would conclude that without the home game revenue -- it can be several million a game for the wealthiest programs -- there's not enough upside to outweigh the downsides.

Even in empty stadiums and arenas, athletes who are not showing symptoms can spread the virus to other athletes and coaches, as Rudy Gobert and others have done.

And any sport or league that plays in full stadiums before there's a vaccine for this virus is risking a repeat of this:

Game Zero: Spread of virus linked to UEFA Champions League match between Atalanta and Valencia

Quote:ROME (AP) — It was the biggest soccer game in Atalanta’s history and a third of Bergamo’s population made the short trip to Milan’s famed San Siro Stadium.

Nearly 2,500 fans of visiting Spanish club Valencia also traveled to that Champions League match.

More than a month later, experts are pointing to the Feb. 19 game as one of the biggest reasons why Bergamo has become one of the epicenters of the coronavirus pandemic — a “biological bomb” was the way one respiratory specialist put it — and why 35% of Valencia’s team became infected.

The match, which local media have dubbed “Game Zero,” was held two days before the first case of locally transmitted COVID-19 was confirmed in Italy.

Empty stadiums will be huge drains in schools outside the P5. I suspect many schools will still be offering online only in the fall which will make sports a huge liability. Hard to charge athletic fees with tuition when most schools don’t normally include those for online students. Hard to make a budget work without ticket revenue and student fees.

The travel aspect will become very problematic and a liability. I suspect some areas will be doing much better than others by September. Bringing football players from all over the country to empty campuses and then traveling them to other cities sounds like a great way to light the fire of a second wave in areas that have otherwise recovered.

If the 2020 football season were to be canceled, how much of P5 schools' athletic spending would actually be eliminated? Travel expenses, certainly. Some recruiting expenses, but not all. Game day costs for home games. Some field maintenance costs. Coaches' bonuses, probably.

What won't be curtailed? Coaches salaries and scholarship costs. Sports information staff salaries, probably.

A big question mark for me has to do with the few schools at the very top of the revenue pyramid. If you are a school like Texas, with annual revenues in the neighborhood of $200 million, how many people does your athletics department employ? Are some of them employed just because UT has to spend the money somewhere? If there were no revenues generated primarily from football, including some that aren't attributed to the football program for public reporting purposes, how many of those employees would be furloughed?

How much would uncertainty about the restart of basketball at some point in the next school year play into these tough decisions?

(04-01-2020 09:15 AM)ken d Wrote:  If the 2020 football season were to be canceled, how much of P5 schools' athletic spending would actually be eliminated? Travel expenses, certainly. Some recruiting expenses, but not all. Game day costs for home games. Some field maintenance costs. Coaches' bonuses, probably.

What won't be curtailed? Coaches salaries and scholarship costs. Sports information staff salaries, probably.

A big question mark for me has to do with the few schools at the very top of the revenue pyramid. If you are a school like Texas, with annual revenues in the neighborhood of $200 million, how many people does your athletics department employ? Are some of them employed just because UT has to spend the money somewhere? If there were no revenues generated primarily from football, including some that aren't attributed to the football program for public reporting purposes, how many of those employees would be furloughed?

How much would uncertainty about the restart of basketball at some point in the next school year play into these tough decisions?

I wouldn't get too wound around the chord on this one. States and Universities will probably take the hit for a year. But I don't see a good reason to worry past that. It may become standard procedure for all players in the future for all travel sports to merely take Hydroxychloroquine and Zinc. As we understand the process now of how it is working. When taken in concert the two together destroy the virus's ability to replicate leaving the bodies immune system to do its work without being overwhelmed. So I see no reason why by next year sports should still remain cancelled.

The greater issue is going to be the social memory of the disease and the ease with which it spread. When malaria was a huge issue for Europeans traveling abroad a culture grew up around the taking of Quinine. The Gin and tonic grew out of this common cultural experience.

But getting people back into desiring to return to malaria prone regions never quite did regain momentum. Returning to tailgating and crowded venues probably won't be as appealing to those whose lives have been negatively impacted by this experience, particularly those who lost loved ones because of it.

It will make many familiar with taking classes online and make them more likely to find other benefits in it.

Our campuses will flourish with online enrollment but the local realtors may not. Room & board costs mom and dad more than tuition in many cases. Future college students may opt to keep their home time high school job and sweetheart and get their degree remotely. They may travel to campuses for some testing and for lab requirements, but the main campuses will likely gravitate toward graduate work, which face it has far less partying and a lot more serious work than undergraduate. And because of that less health risk overall.

I think what we will see is a paradigm shift in how the young look at the college experience. If anything this may facilitate the rapidity in movement to smaller stadium capacity with more private rooms for viewing games than retention of row seating. TV may more quickly become the favorite way to experience gameday. Small social gatherings at homes with HD and surround sound will replace both the need for tickets and the tailgate. It will still be a social activity just not a mass social activity. Team clothing etc will remain popular and bookstores as we've known them will require far less brick and mortar space and will ship to fill orders like Amazon. Shopping online will be improved and become more familiar and grocery stores may finally realize that the way of the future is to return to 1920's when they took orders in the morning, filled them, and the customers picked them up on the way home, or they were delivered.

In any event some industries will be born and others will die as a result of this experience, but the games will go on if for no other reason than TV otherwise is a fearmongering, unhinged, immoral, Harpy in the den of our homes.

(04-01-2020 09:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 09:15 AM)ken d Wrote:  If the 2020 football season were to be canceled, how much of P5 schools' athletic spending would actually be eliminated? Travel expenses, certainly. Some recruiting expenses, but not all. Game day costs for home games. Some field maintenance costs. Coaches' bonuses, probably.

What won't be curtailed? Coaches salaries and scholarship costs. Sports information staff salaries, probably.

A big question mark for me has to do with the few schools at the very top of the revenue pyramid. If you are a school like Texas, with annual revenues in the neighborhood of $200 million, how many people does your athletics department employ? Are some of them employed just because UT has to spend the money somewhere? If there were no revenues generated primarily from football, including some that aren't attributed to the football program for public reporting purposes, how many of those employees would be furloughed?

How much would uncertainty about the restart of basketball at some point in the next school year play into these tough decisions?

I wouldn't get too wound around the chord on this one. States and Universities will probably take the hit for a year. But I don't see a good reason to worry past that. It may become standard procedure for all players in the future for all travel sports to merely take Hydroxychloroquine and Zinc. As we understand the process now of how it is working. When taken in concert the two together destroy the virus's ability to replicate leaving the bodies immune system to do its work without being overwhelmed. So I see no reason why by next year sports should still remain cancelled.

The greater issue is going to be the social memory of the disease and the ease with which it spread. When malaria was a huge issue for Europeans traveling abroad a culture grew up around the taking of Quinine. The Gin and tonic grew out of this common cultural experience.

But getting people back into desiring to return to malaria prone regions never quite did regain momentum. Returning to tailgating and crowded venues probably won't be as appealing to those whose lives have been negatively impacted by this experience, particularly those who lost loved ones because of it.

It will make many familiar with taking classes online and make them more likely to find other benefits in it.

Our campuses will flourish with online enrollment but the local realtors may not. Room & board costs mom and dad more than tuition in many cases. Future college students may opt to keep their home time high school job and sweetheart and get their degree remotely. They may travel to campuses for some testing and for lab requirements, but the main campuses will likely gravitate toward graduate work, which face it has far less partying and a lot more serious work than undergraduate. And because of that less health risk overall.

I think what we will see is a paradigm shift in how the young look at the college experience. If anything this may facilitate the rapidity in movement to smaller stadium capacity with more private rooms for viewing games than retention of row seating. TV may more quickly become the favorite way to experience gameday. Small social gatherings at homes with HD and surround sound will replace both the need for tickets and the tailgate. It will still be a social activity just not a mass social activity. Team clothing etc will remain popular and bookstores as we've known them will require far less brick and mortar space and will ship to fill orders like Amazon. Shopping online will be improved and become more familiar and grocery stores may finally realize that the way of the future is to return to 1920's when they took orders in the morning, filled them, and the customers picked them up on the way home, or they were delivered.

In any event some industries will be born and others will die as a result of this experience, but the games will go on if for no other reason than TV otherwise is a fearmongering, unhinged, immoral, Harpy in the den of our homes.

Malaria perhaps more than anything else gave us slavery. It was brought from Africa where there was some immunity, but it made the fertile, marshy part of the south very unhealthy for Europeans.

(04-01-2020 09:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  In any event some industries will be born and others will die as a result of this experience, but the games will go on if for no other reason than TV otherwise is a fearmongering, unhinged, immoral, Harpy in the den of our homes.

Can I call in the spirit of Sam Kinison to redeliver this paragraph? It needs lots more vitriol packaged within humor.

A few tidbits for you all...

Lessons from Italy’s Response to Coronavirus
Recognize your cognitive biases. In its early stages, the Covid-19 crisis in Italy looked nothing like a crisis... Threats such as pandemics that evolve in a nonlinear fashion (i.e., they start small but exponentially intensify) are especially tricky to confront because of the challenges of rapidly interpreting what is happening in real time. The most effective time to take strong action is extremely early, when the threat appears to be small — or even before there are any cases. But if the intervention actually works, it will appear in retrospect as if the strong actions were an overreaction.

Avoid partial solutions. A second lesson that can be drawn from the Italian experience is the importance of systematic approaches and the perils of partial solutions... When the decree announcing the closing of northern Italy became public, it touched off a massive exodus to southern Italy, undoubtedly spreading the virus...


The Mathematics of Predicting the Course of the Coronavirus
Harvard infectious disease epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch said... his team had used an SEIR model with numbers tweaked to simulate the tightening or loosening of social distancing measures, as well as a potential flu-like seasonal variation in Covid-19 infections... even with the strictest lockdown-type measures lasting from April through July, his team’s model finds that the disease surges back in autumn.

Brett McMurphy:

Spring Football? Nine-Game Season?

I'm not sure I see the point of playing games in either the spring or fall if they would be played without fans. In any case, if we are still in anything like the present social restrictions through the end of 2020, we're going to have much bigger problems than whether we have sports. What we would have would be something even worse than the Depression of the 1930's.

But just to play the speculation game, one approach might be this. Provided students are allowed to return to campus and fans allowed to attend games, start the basketball season after Christmas, playing only conference games. Have an abbreviated NCAAT, played over two weeks, scheduled to finish by the end of March.

Start the football season the first week in April, again only playing conference games (and games against independents). Have no postseason except for conference championships. No bowl games, and players drafted (and even signed) before their season ends do not lose eligibility until after their season ends.

All other fall sports seasons would be moved to the spring semester.

If virus forecasting models are correct, something like that may be the best we can hope for.

(04-02-2020 10:53 AM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not sure I see the point of playing games in either the spring or fall if they would be played without fans.

Agreed, that would be pointless and stupid. College football exists first and foremost for the attendee in the seats. It's not a "made for TV" sport, despite the huge media deals.

In contrast, a sport like Horse Racing primarily exists for betting, and so running the races without fans in the stands is fine. A few iconic races like the Triple Crown races notwithstanding.

(04-02-2020 11:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 10:53 AM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not sure I see the point of playing games in either the spring or fall if they would be played without fans.

Agreed, that would be pointless and stupid. College football exists first and foremost for the attendee in the seats. It's not a "made for TV" sport, despite the huge media deals.

In contrast, a sport like Horse Racing primarily exists for betting, and so running the races without fans in the stands is fine. A few iconic races like the Triple Crown races notwithstanding.

Yes. Despite the media deals, which did not exist when college football first flourished across America, the schools' primary motivation was to have a vehicle to maintain contact with their alumni who returned to campus on fall Saturdays. "Homecoming", and in some places, tailgating, grew out of that.

Take away the fans, and all you are left with is a vehicle for preparing some players for a pro career. That does nothing for the school.

No season could be that "market corrections" which a presidents and other administrators want.

Remember, states are still going to have NIL bills become law this summer. And no season allows them the opportunity to recreate the sport to what THEY want, possibly without paying the labor and keeping their "amateur model". The angriest of folks might end up being the coaches who may receive pay cuts regardless of the media rights.

(04-02-2020 11:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 10:53 AM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not sure I see the point of playing games in either the spring or fall if they would be played without fans.

Agreed, that would be pointless and stupid. College football exists first and foremost for the attendee in the seats. It's not a "made for TV" sport, despite the huge media deals.

In contrast, a sport like Horse Racing primarily exists for betting, and so running the races without fans in the stands is fine. A few iconic races like the Triple Crown races notwithstanding.

On the contrary, it's never been solely for the people inside the stadium. The people going to the game are just one part of the story.

Every major college football game has far more alumni and other fans following on TV and internet than in the stands. Before games were televised, there were more listening on radio than in the stands.

As for the comparison to horse racing... look at the NFL today. If there was no sports betting of any kind, no "fantasy football", none of that, how much of the NFL's audience would fall away? 50%? 80%? And it's getting easier all the time to bet on sports. When it's as easy to place an internet bet on a football game as on a horse race, when you can see the odds on the screen and use your computer or phone to place your bet before the start of the game or the start of the second half -- similar to horse racing -- then they can play pro or college football in a small stadium with 5,000 or zero people present and rake in the bucks from both TV and gambling, and it would be far more lucrative than horse racing.

The pro sports leagues (if not colleges, and colleges are probably just doing it more quietly) are already preparing for this in the event there are someday no limits at all on sports betting. They already have "partnerships" with major casino operators. The leagues are probably preparing to run their own internet and mobile gambling operations like horse racing's TVG so that they can open up gambling as a huge revenue stream for themselves.

If, like horse racing, you have enough revenue from other streams, then the folks in the stands are nice but not necessary.

Wedge I think you are wrong. College sports are minor league. The pretense of college students and loyalty to your alma mater are critical for the audience. College football and college basketball will fall flat in empty stadiums, exposed for what it is, a minor league. It does nothing for the schools to play games in empty stadiums. Maybe contractually the P5 will want to do it, even the AAC, but it makes less sense for anyone else.

This is also why semi-pro paid league in college would die quickly, as fans would lose their allegiance, the ratings drop to nothing. The G-league is way better than college basketball, but nobody watches. It's a fragile model, that could collapse.

Anyway, back to the OP, I am increasingly of the opinion we won't have a 2020 college football season and maybe no college sports until 2021-22. We have to see the number of COVID-19 cases drop to almost zero and testing be widespread all the time to be able to isolate outbreaks. Less than one percent of the population have caught it and have any immunity, and there is no guarantee of a viable and widely available vaccine for probably a few years. California is in lock down and we have yet to see the daily deaths and new cases drop. It will but how soon? We are locked down until May 3rd, and it could be until July 1st. If the number of cases drops to almost zero, then I'll switch to yes go back to mostly normal. But right now it looks a long way off.

At this point I’d say there’s about a 70% chance it gets cancelled. There’s no way on Earth that if this thing is still around to a significant degree in the Fall (which it probably will be) that teams consisting 100 people (players, coaches, staffs) are going to be allowed to interact with eachother and teams from other areas of the country. I’d absolutely hate it, but it just wouldn’t happen. People are getting arrested for holding groups of 12 people. It takes 22 on the field to play the game...

(04-02-2020 02:04 PM)3BNole Wrote:  At this point I’d say there’s about a 70% chance it gets cancelled. There’s no way on Earth that if this thing is still around to a significant degree in the Fall (which it probably will be) that teams consisting 100 people (players, coaches, staffs) are going to be allowed to interact with eachother and teams from other areas of the country. I’d absolutely hate it, but it just wouldn’t happen. People are getting arrested for holding groups of 12 people. It takes 22 on the field to play the game...

I also think there's zero chance of empty-stadium football. The same principle for why you'd have empty stadiums also applies to why you can't hold games with 250 players/coaches/staff/officials/operations on the field.

2020 is the Year of Coronavirus. Hopefully COVID-19 infects the CFP trophy so we get the crystal ball back.

(04-02-2020 02:12 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 02:04 PM)3BNole Wrote:  At this point I’d say there’s about a 70% chance it gets cancelled. There’s no way on Earth that if this thing is still around to a significant degree in the Fall (which it probably will be) that teams consisting 100 people (players, coaches, staffs) are going to be allowed to interact with eachother and teams from other areas of the country. I’d absolutely hate it, but it just wouldn’t happen. People are getting arrested for holding groups of 12 people. It takes 22 on the field to play the game...

I also think there's zero chance of empty-stadium football. The same principle for why you'd have empty stadiums also applies to why you can't hold games with 250 players/coaches/staff/officials/operations on the field.

2020 is the Year of Coronavirus. Hopefully COVID-19 infects the CFP trophy so we get the crystal ball back.

Ha! I see you're not a fan of the "Golden Bud Vase" either!

(04-02-2020 10:53 AM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not sure I see the point of playing games in either the spring or fall if they would be played without fans. In any case, if we are still in anything like the present social restrictions through the end of 2020, we're going to have much bigger problems than whether we have sports. What we would have would be something even worse than the Depression of the 1930's.

But just to play the speculation game, one approach might be this. Provided students are allowed to return to campus and fans allowed to attend games, start the basketball season after Christmas, playing only conference games. Have an abbreviated NCAAT, played over two weeks, scheduled to finish by the end of March.

Start the football season the first week in April, again only playing conference games (and games against independents). Have no postseason except for conference championships. No bowl games, and players drafted (and even signed) before their season ends do not lose eligibility until after their season ends.

All other fall sports seasons would be moved to the spring semester.

If virus forecasting models are correct, something like that may be the best we can hope for.

UGA just announced there would be no on campus summer school.

(04-02-2020 02:04 PM)3BNole Wrote:  At this point I’d say there’s about a 70% chance it gets cancelled. There’s no way on Earth that if this thing is still around to a significant degree in the Fall (which it probably will be) that teams consisting 100 people (players, coaches, staffs) are going to be allowed to interact with eachother and teams from other areas of the country. I’d absolutely hate it, but it just wouldn’t happen. People are getting arrested for holding groups of 12 people. It takes 22 on the field to play the game...

I'd say about 90%.

The virus is still going to be around and huge gatherings like this increase the chance of a renewed spike.

(04-02-2020 01:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 11:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 10:53 AM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not sure I see the point of playing games in either the spring or fall if they would be played without fans.

Agreed, that would be pointless and stupid. College football exists first and foremost for the attendee in the seats. It's not a "made for TV" sport, despite the huge media deals.

In contrast, a sport like Horse Racing primarily exists for betting, and so running the races without fans in the stands is fine. A few iconic races like the Triple Crown races notwithstanding.

On the contrary, it's never been solely for the people inside the stadium. The people going to the game are just one part of the story.

Every major college football game has far more alumni and other fans following on TV and internet than in the stands. Before games were televised, there were more listening on radio than in the stands.

To me, they are an essential part of the story.

Hey, maybe you are right and we will see Florida vs Georgia in an empty Jacksonville stadium in October. But i won't bet on it (LOL). There will be a regular game with 90,000 in the stands, or no game.

We shall see.