If they play games without fans or reduced crowds, us MAC schools are better prepared than anyone for a smooth transition.

(04-10-2020 04:31 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  If they play games without fans or reduced crowds, us MAC schools are better prepared than anyone for a smooth transition.

Now that's the way to find the silver lining in this cloud.

(04-10-2020 04:21 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It's a two fold problem on testing

1) manufacturing
2) testing facilities (for the more thorough tests that labs).

Both are bottlenecks and have capacity limits. The first because of our outsourcing almost all manufacturing to hostile PRC -- this means we are starting from scratch and find we often cannot even get the component parts, and we need time to get the expertise and ramp up--; and the second is a sheer limit to the ability to perform tests (some automation will help and we are improving).

We realistically need the ability to perform 1 billion tests (3 per person in a year) to really crush this.

I do not share your optimism about the fall. California is ahead of the game as most US states go, and our peak is not expected until mid-May, and lifting of some lock down not until June. But as has happened in Singapore, a second wave is almost certain, and could be as bad or worse than the first, since only a small fraction of the population will have developed immunity.

For those reasons I think Sports are not happening for this calendar year, and possibly not next year either. But by then it should have blown through 1/3rd or more of the people and enough resistance built up to open things up in 2021 or 2022. But there will still be spot outbreaks.

I agree about the testing. A billion is not going to happen in the next four months. But some significant testing increases are required to get football going again. We are going at a snail's pace right now. As for manufacturing, that is a long term problem that will need to be discussed when this crisis is over. Hospitals need to keep costs down to survive. Healthcare manufacturers needed to go overseas to reduce costs of supplies and equipment, to be competitive. It is not as simple as just bringing it back.

I think sports will come back this year, just because everybody wants their money. But I expect empty or near empty stadiums.

Sports Business Journal used that Seton Hall poll for their COVID-19 podcast topic today.

https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cD...AQAQ&hl=en

FWIW, Clay Travis did a Twitter poll two days ago asking the exact same question (would you attend a sporting event this summer or fall without a COVID vaccine existing).

Of nearly 90k voters, 77% said they would attend a sporting event without a vaccine, to just 23% saying they would not.

(04-11-2020 10:12 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  FWIW, Clay Travis did a Twitter poll two days ago asking the exact same question (would you attend a sporting event this summer or fall without a COVID vaccine existing).

Of nearly 90k voters, 77% said they would attend a sporting event without a vaccine, to just 23% saying they would not.

I have kids with pre-existing conditions. But if 23% of people stay home, I'd have no problem taking them to sit in the upper deck to watch a Reds game.

I'm 100% sure that they won't re-open without automatic ticket scanners. So if we get in early, keep my distance at the food counter, and sit in the upper deck where the nearest person is 20 feet away, then there's very little risk.

(04-11-2020 10:12 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  FWIW, Clay Travis did a Twitter poll two days ago asking the exact same question (would you attend a sporting event this summer or fall without a COVID vaccine existing).

Of nearly 90k voters, 77% said they would attend a sporting event without a vaccine, to just 23% saying they would not.

They can assume that there will not be a vaccine by the summer or fall. The question should be, would you return to a game under today's condition's, if nothing has changed? Since less than 1% of Americans have been tested for Covid 19 as of today, it doesn't seem likely that fans would want to return. What percentage of testing would make people feel comfortable? 10%? 20%? 50%? 100%? These are questions that need to be answered. Unless there are significant improvements in testing, I don't see how they risk having thousands of people at a sporting event.

id like to know what kind of "social distancing" the 12% would find acceptable? 6ft between each seat?

(04-10-2020 11:51 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Being that pandemics come in waves, it wouldn't surprise me if the fall semester is totally cancelled and only online classes are held. That will postpone the fall football season anyways. Of course, this may be different than pandemics of our past and is over by June. Worst case scenario is we don't see any semblance of normalcy until sometime in 2022.

That’s probably the most likely scenario at this point. We are unlikely to have a vaccine by fall and the current social distancing effort is being used to choke out this wave prior to achieving herd immunity.

(04-11-2020 10:12 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  FWIW, Clay Travis did a Twitter poll two days ago asking the exact same question (would you attend a sporting event this summer or fall without a COVID vaccine existing).

Of nearly 90k voters, 77% said they would attend a sporting event without a vaccine, to just 23% saying they would not.

Clay Travis followers tend to be more conservative and from what I’ve seen, more skeptical of the wholesale measures being taken to contain the virus. That’s not to say the Seton Hall poll is flawless but you’re more likely to get a good cross-section of respondents than an opt in poll of games of someone who takes a skeptical view of the containment effort.

(04-12-2020 10:41 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 10:12 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  FWIW, Clay Travis did a Twitter poll two days ago asking the exact same question (would you attend a sporting event this summer or fall without a COVID vaccine existing).

Of nearly 90k voters, 77% said they would attend a sporting event without a vaccine, to just 23% saying they would not.

Clay Travis followers tend to be more conservative and from what I’ve seen, more skeptical of the wholesale measures being taken to contain the virus. That’s not to say the Seton Hall poll is flawless but you’re more likely to get a good cross-section of respondents than an opt in poll of games of someone who takes a skeptical view of the containment effort.

You claim one narrow view and then top it off with another one without stating facts. Why would Seton Hall have a better cross-section? Because it's a school no one knows outside of NJ?

(04-12-2020 12:34 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(04-12-2020 10:41 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 10:12 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  FWIW, Clay Travis did a Twitter poll two days ago asking the exact same question (would you attend a sporting event this summer or fall without a COVID vaccine existing).

Of nearly 90k voters, 77% said they would attend a sporting event without a vaccine, to just 23% saying they would not.

Clay Travis followers tend to be more conservative and from what I’ve seen, more skeptical of the wholesale measures being taken to contain the virus. That’s not to say the Seton Hall poll is flawless but you’re more likely to get a good cross-section of respondents than an opt in poll of games of someone who takes a skeptical view of the containment effort.

You claim one narrow view and then top it off with another one without stating facts. Why would Seton Hall have a better cross-section? Because it's a school no one knows outside of NJ?

Travis' audience is very narrow, high interest fan, very conservative, very Fox News, AON, Breitbart and talk radio consumer. Alternate reality.

Opt-in polls tend also to only get the most dedicated respondents. Cross the two and you get an outlier result.

A real world number is the drop in donations, very steep, schools are seeing. Donations are closely aligned to attendance. It's just not that important now. Although the fan addict is climbing the walls in boredom.

(04-12-2020 01:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(04-12-2020 12:34 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(04-12-2020 10:41 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 10:12 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  FWIW, Clay Travis did a Twitter poll two days ago asking the exact same question (would you attend a sporting event this summer or fall without a COVID vaccine existing).

Of nearly 90k voters, 77% said they would attend a sporting event without a vaccine, to just 23% saying they would not.

Clay Travis followers tend to be more conservative and from what I’ve seen, more skeptical of the wholesale measures being taken to contain the virus. That’s not to say the Seton Hall poll is flawless but you’re more likely to get a good cross-section of respondents than an opt in poll of games of someone who takes a skeptical view of the containment effort.

You claim one narrow view and then top it off with another one without stating facts. Why would Seton Hall have a better cross-section? Because it's a school no one knows outside of NJ?

Travis' audience is very narrow, high interest fan, very conservative, very Fox News, AON, Breitbart and talk radio consumer. Alternate reality.

Kind of a broad brush you're using. I'm an independent (former dem) moderate. Your description of his audience doesn't reflect me at all but I enjoy Clay's stuff. Some good sports takes and uses a humorous common sense approach to call out the professionally offended/PC/woke Twitter crowd.

He's also never voted for a Republican presidential candidate, voted for Obama twice and worked on Al Gore's presidential campaign.

Constant Lakers-Celtics crammed down our throats by ESPN might change peoples' minds!

Does anyone know how much each school would lose on empty stadium games? I'm actually curious on how many people are needed to have a decent gate revenue for each team. Could let say a hard cap of 30% of seats are allowed to be sold per game help schools gain some revenue? A cap of 30% is just a number picked out of the air.

(04-12-2020 02:58 PM)46566 Wrote:  Does anyone know how much each school would lose on empty stadium games? .

The USA Today database of finances for public D-I programs, https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ , has a line item for each school for total annual revenue from ticket sales. That includes all ticketed sports and not just football, but it's a good guess that at least 75% of that revenue is for football except at schools like Kansas or Duke where basketball is far more popular.

So the answer is that it varies a lot, obviously depending on the number of tickets sold and how much each team charges for tickets. The USA Today database says Ohio State had $69,160,661 in total ticket sales for 2018, while Eastern Michigan had $738,136, meaning that Ohio State made more than 93 times as much money as EMU just in ticket sales. A guesstimate from those numbers is that the gross revenue for an average home football game (including concessions, parking, and mandatory donations required of season ticket holders) might be $8-10 million per game at Ohio State and maybe $100,000 or less at EMU.

(04-10-2020 12:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-10-2020 07:40 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  When you are young and dumb like the majority of us were (are) between 18-25.. They'll be there regardless in masses if permitted to.

In masses? That age group already wasn't attending college football games in "masses" before this year. If they were the only ones in the stadium, you could put every 18-25 year old person who regularly attended CFB games last year into a CFB stadium and still maintain social distancing of 6 feet or more, no problem.

After what we are currently going through.. the price of tix will probably be low too.. Young people will flock to the games just to look cool on social media