Fall 2020 - Pro’s
1. Summer 2020 practice possible
2. Traditional schedule
3. Traditional bowl lineup
4. Conference/Team members remain unchanged
Fall 2020 - Con’s
1. COVID-19 infections
2. Fewer fans in stands
3. Many players quarantined
4. Less income from ticket sales
5. May not get in full schedule
Spring 2021 - Pro’s
1. More fans in stands
2. Vaccine should be out
3. More income from ticket sales
4. Should get in full schedule
Spring 2021 - Con’s
1. Bowl season screwed up
2. Cold weather to start season
3. Pre-season practice during Holidays
4. Non traditional schedule
Feel free to add your thoughts
(This post was last modified: 06-25-2020 09:00 AM by SMUstang.)
I'm tired of general lockdowns and attempts to keep *everyone* from getting the virus when only a *tiny* percentage of those who get it have bad health outcomes.
Let's have regular football in front of big crowds of fans, and protect those who are most vulnerable to bad health outcomes from it. And yes, I know there is zero chance of happening, as the "lockdown" approach is still the accepted approach of the decision-making class, but that's just my view.
(This post was last modified: 06-25-2020 09:08 AM by quo vadis.)
I know ADs will do what they need to do to get a football season in any way they can get it, but I also imagine the headache it would create for them as well. The spring schedule is already crowded with multiple sports overlapping and now you throw football into the mix. For leagues like the Sun Belt that contract with ESPN for ESPN+ we have to broadcast all home games for football and men’s basketball. We were also set to begin broadcasting all home baseball games on ESPN+ this year as well. Schools like South Alabama already broadcast all baseball, women’s basketball, and softball home games in addition to football and men’s basketball. That probably means we are looking at some sports losing coverage because you just don’t have the personnel in place to cover those sports in addition to football.
(06-25-2020 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote: I'm tired of general lockdowns and attempts to keep *everyone* from getting the virus when only a *tiny* percentage of those who get it have bad health outcomes.
Let's have regular football in front of big crowds of fans, and protect those who are most vulnerable to bad health outcomes from it. And yes, I know there is zero chance of happening, as the "lockdown" approach is still the accepted approach of the decision-making class, but that's just my view.
It's hard to see the current strategy (or rather, lack thereof) resulting in a full college football season. It may already be too late to use a different strategy that might have a different outcome.
Anyone who may have thought that athletes could practice without getting the virus just wasn't thinking straight. The only way to have football would have been to not only accept that athletes would be infected, but rather to try to get all of them infected as quickly as possible (or at least the ones who were willing to accept the risk that they wouldn't die and that others around them might). Then, hope that surviving the virus would confer immunity at least long enough to finish the season. Require that schools honor the scholarships of any players who choose to not play under these circumstances.
Will such a strategy promote the spread of the virus? Absolutely. Especially among fans. Will it result in more deaths than not playing? Absolutely. We just have to decide whether saving some lives is worth not having live sports.
(06-25-2020 08:49 AM)Gamecock Wrote: Hard to imagine playing games in Wisconsin in January and February.
This, obviously. And that's just one problem.
What's the reason they're trying to play at all? Money. P5 programs (and pro leagues) don't want to lose the TV money that they're contracted to receive. But we can't assume that the TV networks would agree to pay the same amount of money for a spring CFB season as for the fall season they are contracted to pay for.
If CFB moved back six months, then it's on TV at the same time as March Madness, the Masters, the NBA and NHL playoffs, and the start of the MLB season, so the ratings for all of those including CFB are likely to be lower. The TV networks that pay for CFB would want to pay less, and the networks paying for those other sporting events would resist it as well. If this happened and you were running CBS or Turner Sports, you'd be telling the NCAA, "You moved your college football season to the same time as your college basketball tournament, so you own this problem. We agreed to pay $900 million for this tournament based on having no competition from college football, but now you've drastically reduced our basketball audience because Clemson-Notre Dame, USC-Oregon, and Alabama-LSU football are all on the same Saturday as the Final Four.* Because you changed the schedule on us, we're only going to pay you $300 million for March Madness this year instead of $900 million."
The calendar for a spring CFB season would likely have bowl games starting in mid-June. One writer said (maybe jokingly), "Imagine the Rose Bowl on the Fourth of July." OK, imagine it. Then tell me how you're going to tell thousands of unpaid college football players who finished their season in June to turn around and report to training camp in July for the regular 2021 CFB season.
---------- * Move the CFB season back six months, and then those games on the first Saturday in November 2020 move to the first Saturday in April 2021, which is Final Four Saturday.
(06-25-2020 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote: I'm tired of general lockdowns and attempts to keep *everyone* from getting the virus when only a *tiny* percentage of those who get it have bad health outcomes.
Let's have regular football in front of big crowds of fans, and protect those who are most vulnerable to bad health outcomes from it. And yes, I know there is zero chance of happening, as the "lockdown" approach is still the accepted approach of the decision-making class, but that's just my view.
9.71 million confirmed cases and 497,797 deaths.
That is a mortality rate of 5.13%. If the whole world got it then 400 million dead.
(06-25-2020 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote: I'm tired of general lockdowns and attempts to keep *everyone* from getting the virus when only a *tiny* percentage of those who get it have bad health outcomes.
Let's have regular football in front of big crowds of fans, and protect those who are most vulnerable to bad health outcomes from it. And yes, I know there is zero chance of happening, as the "lockdown" approach is still the accepted approach of the decision-making class, but that's just my view.
9.71 million confirmed cases and 497,797 deaths.
That is a mortality rate of 5.13%. If the whole world got it then 400 million dead.
That's pretty deadly.
I agree overall, but you have to mention that there's a high high number of people who get it and never get tested. I have very strong suspicions that my wife and I both had it in early to mid march but never got tested because we assumed it was a normal cold and also there were no tests.
(06-25-2020 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote: I'm tired of general lockdowns and attempts to keep *everyone* from getting the virus when only a *tiny* percentage of those who get it have bad health outcomes.
Let's have regular football in front of big crowds of fans, and protect those who are most vulnerable to bad health outcomes from it. And yes, I know there is zero chance of happening, as the "lockdown" approach is still the accepted approach of the decision-making class, but that's just my view.
9.71 million confirmed cases and 497,797 deaths.
That is a mortality rate of 5.13%. If the whole world got it then 400 million dead.
That's pretty deadly.
I agree overall, but you have to mention that there's a high high number of people who get it and never get tested. I have very strong suspicions that my wife and I both had it in early to mid march but never got tested because we assumed it was a normal cold and also there were no tests.
Studies showed 10-40 times the positive tests actually had the virus.
(06-25-2020 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote: I'm tired of general lockdowns and attempts to keep *everyone* from getting the virus when only a *tiny* percentage of those who get it have bad health outcomes.
Let's have regular football in front of big crowds of fans, and protect those who are most vulnerable to bad health outcomes from it. And yes, I know there is zero chance of happening, as the "lockdown" approach is still the accepted approach of the decision-making class, but that's just my view.
9.71 million confirmed cases and 497,797 deaths.
That is a mortality rate of 5.13%. If the whole world got it then 400 million dead.
That's pretty deadly.
I agree overall, but you have to mention that there's a high high number of people who get it and never get tested. I have very strong suspicions that my wife and I both had it in early to mid march but never got tested because we assumed it was a normal cold and also there were no tests.
We will never know what the true mortality rate is for this or pretty much any virus for the reason you stated. To arrive at a rate you need to know both the number of deaths and the number of infections. So far, we have done only a limited amount of testing, and we aren't likely to increase that much in the future despite what the CDC might want. The only thing that matters ultimately is how many people don't survive the virus. Whether that number is 5% or O.5% doesn't really matter much. We just have to decide whether the number of deaths - whatever that number is - is worth taking steps to prevent them. The American public is very divided over that issue.
(06-25-2020 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote: I'm tired of general lockdowns and attempts to keep *everyone* from getting the virus when only a *tiny* percentage of those who get it have bad health outcomes.
Let's have regular football in front of big crowds of fans, and protect those who are most vulnerable to bad health outcomes from it. And yes, I know there is zero chance of happening, as the "lockdown" approach is still the accepted approach of the decision-making class, but that's just my view.
9.71 million confirmed cases and 497,797 deaths.
That is a mortality rate of 5.13%. If the whole world got it then 400 million dead.
That's pretty deadly.
Last numbers I have seen estimate 0.24% mortality rate (about double the flue). Confirmed cases to deaths overstates the rate because of unconfirmed positives.
(This post was last modified: 06-26-2020 10:02 AM by bullet.)
(06-25-2020 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote: I'm tired of general lockdowns and attempts to keep *everyone* from getting the virus when only a *tiny* percentage of those who get it have bad health outcomes.
Let's have regular football in front of big crowds of fans, and protect those who are most vulnerable to bad health outcomes from it. And yes, I know there is zero chance of happening, as the "lockdown" approach is still the accepted approach of the decision-making class, but that's just my view.
9.71 million confirmed cases and 497,797 deaths.
That is a mortality rate of 5.13%. If the whole world got it then 400 million dead.
That's pretty deadly.
I agree overall, but you have to mention that there's a high high number of people who get it and never get tested. I have very strong suspicions that my wife and I both had it in early to mid march but never got tested because we assumed it was a normal cold and also there were no tests.
We will never know what the true mortality rate is for this or pretty much any virus for the reason you stated. To arrive at a rate you need to know both the number of deaths and the number of infections. So far, we have done only a limited amount of testing, and we aren't likely to increase that much in the future despite what the CDC might want. The only thing that matters ultimately is how many people don't survive the virus. Whether that number is 5% or O.5% doesn't really matter much. We just have to decide whether the number of deaths - whatever that number is - is worth taking steps to prevent them. The American public is very divided over that issue.
Wrong question. The steps to lower the number of deaths from Covid increase deaths from other causes such as suicide, deferred medical procedures, alcoholism, etc. One estimate calculated 100,000 will be dead because of the shutdowns.
Each situation needs to be considered based on whether it is a reasonable risk. IMO in person college and K-12 classes seems to be worth it. Football in filled stadiums hardly seems worth it. But the schools are driven by NCAA money.
(06-25-2020 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote: I'm tired of general lockdowns and attempts to keep *everyone* from getting the virus when only a *tiny* percentage of those who get it have bad health outcomes.
Let's have regular football in front of big crowds of fans, and protect those who are most vulnerable to bad health outcomes from it. And yes, I know there is zero chance of happening, as the "lockdown" approach is still the accepted approach of the decision-making class, but that's just my view.
9.71 million confirmed cases and 497,797 deaths.
That is a mortality rate of 5.13%. If the whole world got it then 400 million dead.
That's pretty deadly.
Last numbers I have seen estimate 0.24% mortality rate (about double the flue). Confirmed cases to deaths overstates the rate because of unconfirmed positives.
Last numbers I've seen is an estimate 2.78 mortality rate.
(This post was last modified: 06-26-2020 01:04 PM by HiddenDragon.)
IMO, I believe an overwhelming majority of schools, Presidents, ADs and coaches (not to mention businesses) would all unanimously be "full speed ahead" if the liability piece was known and answered. That is the million dollar question. Will those parties be liable if/when a person gets infected, and/or tests positive, and/or leads to a spread to a group of people.
(06-25-2020 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote: I'm tired of general lockdowns and attempts to keep *everyone* from getting the virus when only a *tiny* percentage of those who get it have bad health outcomes.
Let's have regular football in front of big crowds of fans, and protect those who are most vulnerable to bad health outcomes from it. And yes, I know there is zero chance of happening, as the "lockdown" approach is still the accepted approach of the decision-making class, but that's just my view.
9.71 million confirmed cases and 497,797 deaths.
That is a mortality rate of 5.13%. If the whole world got it then 400 million dead.
That's pretty deadly.
I agree overall, but you have to mention that there's a high high number of people who get it and never get tested. I have very strong suspicions that my wife and I both had it in early to mid march but never got tested because we assumed it was a normal cold and also there were no tests.
We will never know what the true mortality rate is for this or pretty much any virus for the reason you stated. To arrive at a rate you need to know both the number of deaths and the number of infections. So far, we have done only a limited amount of testing, and we aren't likely to increase that much in the future despite what the CDC might want. The only thing that matters ultimately is how many people don't survive the virus. Whether that number is 5% or O.5% doesn't really matter much. We just have to decide whether the number of deaths - whatever that number is - is worth taking steps to prevent them. The American public is very divided over that issue.
Wrong question. The steps to lower the number of deaths from Covid increase deaths from other causes such as suicide, deferred medical procedures, alcoholism, etc. One estimate calculated 100,000 will be dead because of the shutdowns.
Each situation needs to be considered based on whether it is a reasonable risk. IMO in person college and K-12 classes seems to be worth it. Football in filled stadiums hardly seems worth it. But the schools are driven by NCAA money.
To whatever extent that might be true, it is a number that can not be known, or even estimated. That 100K number was simply pulled out of someone's rear end. But even if it were true, if the number of deaths from the virus without any steps to prevent its spread were 300K, is the difference of 200K an acceptable outcome to justify playing football? There is no correct answer to that question. It's just a matter of personal opinion.
If the NCAA and NBA had not shut down when they did, we could have had 1-2 million deaths in this country right now. Few people took it seriously until sports stopped.
(06-25-2020 11:00 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote: 9.71 million confirmed cases and 497,797 deaths.
That is a mortality rate of 5.13%. If the whole world got it then 400 million dead.
That's pretty deadly.
I agree overall, but you have to mention that there's a high high number of people who get it and never get tested. I have very strong suspicions that my wife and I both had it in early to mid march but never got tested because we assumed it was a normal cold and also there were no tests.
We will never know what the true mortality rate is for this or pretty much any virus for the reason you stated. To arrive at a rate you need to know both the number of deaths and the number of infections. So far, we have done only a limited amount of testing, and we aren't likely to increase that much in the future despite what the CDC might want. The only thing that matters ultimately is how many people don't survive the virus. Whether that number is 5% or O.5% doesn't really matter much. We just have to decide whether the number of deaths - whatever that number is - is worth taking steps to prevent them. The American public is very divided over that issue.
Wrong question. The steps to lower the number of deaths from Covid increase deaths from other causes such as suicide, deferred medical procedures, alcoholism, etc. One estimate calculated 100,000 will be dead because of the shutdowns.
Each situation needs to be considered based on whether it is a reasonable risk. IMO in person college and K-12 classes seems to be worth it. Football in filled stadiums hardly seems worth it. But the schools are driven by NCAA money.
To whatever extent that might be true, it is a number that can not be known, or even estimated. That 100K number was simply pulled out of someone's rear end. But even if it were true, if the number of deaths from the virus without any steps to prevent its spread were 300K, is the difference of 200K an acceptable outcome to justify playing football? There is no correct answer to that question. It's just a matter of personal opinion.
No, they used the increase in death rates from a variety of factors and calculated it.
Football for one adds very little but increases risk a good bit. Jobs add a lot and increase risk some, but nothing like sitting in a stadium.
(06-26-2020 09:43 AM)Gamecock Wrote: I agree overall, but you have to mention that there's a high high number of people who get it and never get tested. I have very strong suspicions that my wife and I both had it in early to mid march but never got tested because we assumed it was a normal cold and also there were no tests.
We will never know what the true mortality rate is for this or pretty much any virus for the reason you stated. To arrive at a rate you need to know both the number of deaths and the number of infections. So far, we have done only a limited amount of testing, and we aren't likely to increase that much in the future despite what the CDC might want. The only thing that matters ultimately is how many people don't survive the virus. Whether that number is 5% or O.5% doesn't really matter much. We just have to decide whether the number of deaths - whatever that number is - is worth taking steps to prevent them. The American public is very divided over that issue.
Wrong question. The steps to lower the number of deaths from Covid increase deaths from other causes such as suicide, deferred medical procedures, alcoholism, etc. One estimate calculated 100,000 will be dead because of the shutdowns.
Each situation needs to be considered based on whether it is a reasonable risk. IMO in person college and K-12 classes seems to be worth it. Football in filled stadiums hardly seems worth it. But the schools are driven by NCAA money.
To whatever extent that might be true, it is a number that can not be known, or even estimated. That 100K number was simply pulled out of someone's rear end. But even if it were true, if the number of deaths from the virus without any steps to prevent its spread were 300K, is the difference of 200K an acceptable outcome to justify playing football? There is no correct answer to that question. It's just a matter of personal opinion.
No, they used the increase in death rates from a variety of factors and calculated it.
Football for one adds very little but increases risk a good bit. Jobs add a lot and increase risk some, but nothing like sitting in a stadium.
If anybody is telling you how many deaths have occurred in the last four months from alcoholism attributable to our response to the virus, he's blowing smoke up your rear. He is just trying to support his personal political argument. The same is true of suicides. Is an increase in suicides due to despair about the economic situation, or because people are despairing over the ineptitude and callousness of our federal leaders? Or some other reason? We can't know that. We can each just spin the numbers to support our personal political argument. What we can know - all we can know for sure - is how many people are dying.
/
Football Season Possibilities
![[Image: anybody-got-next.jpg]](https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/69337080/anybody-got-next.jpg)
