|
Post by lmills72 on Jun 15, 2020 18:56:28 GMT -6
Now if we could get back to the original premise of this thread, if the massive crowds of protesters for George Floyd's death and their total disregard for the lock down of the US population and social distancing would give us any insight into what might happen in the fall if college football were allowed to return. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8422123/Minnesotas-COVID-19-cases-declining-despite-George-Floyd-protests.htmlThus far only 1 in 70 (1.4%) of the protesters in Minnesota have tested positive. As the article states, it's too early to tell for sure if the trend will continue, but aren't we within 7 to 14 day window for incubation? You could also argue that at least some of the 1.4% got infected from some other source than being with the protest crowds. I would argue thus far the experimental evidence is good for football returning in the fall. Let's say the math you presented is correct and possibly even exaggerated since, as you say, some folks could have become infected from another source. For the heck of it, let's say the true infection rate in a crowd is only 1 in 100 (makes the math easier, too). Ball States averaged almost 10,000 per game last year (supposedly), and a good number more who just show up to tailgate. Even with that base figure, you could conceivably be talking about 100 new infections each game, or 600 for the season. For reference, Delaware County has had just over 400 positive cases through this whole thing. At a school like Michigan, that comes to about 1,000 new infections each game, based on their 100,000+ average attendance. So schools could take measures that protests haven't, such as suggesting everyone wear face mask, but that would be hard to enforce once fans entered the stadium. I suspect the yelling that takes place during a game would be comparable to what happens as a protest, so maybe not much difference there. Of course, at a BSU game with 10,000 you can pretty easily socially distance if you want to, but that would be harder to do at Michigan. In the end, maybe the bigger factor would be the health of the players. If you aren't on top of it and an outbreak happens among the team, even if it's just one team in each conference that has to shut down its season, then schedules start to have holes. It gets messy. Some of the big conferences might be willing to deal with that, but would the MAC? I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 15, 2020 20:07:59 GMT -6
It looks like everyone is planning for FB, but it's not a sure thing.
Plans at BSU are not approved and apparently depend on state level decisions and our own campus plans which are in process not set in stone yet.
Purdue and other schools nationwide have already announced plans for limited attendance. I have doubts tail gating will be approved in anything like the usual form.
I'm worried with you that we start school and it blows up on us. Apart from FB, gathering 20K students on campus, and expecting social distance seems unlikely to me to work out well.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Jun 15, 2020 20:15:48 GMT -6
With our attendance it wouldn’t be too hard to be socially distant.... (especially in November)
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jun 15, 2020 20:40:21 GMT -6
As Herman notes, attending a Mac football game might be the most virus-safe time frame of most peoples' week
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Jun 15, 2020 21:43:29 GMT -6
Let's say the math you presented is correct and possibly even exaggerated since, as you say, some folks could have become infected from another source. For the heck of it, let's say the true infection rate in a crowd is only 1 in 100 (makes the math easier, too). Ball States averaged almost 10,000 per game last year (supposedly), and a good number more who just show up to tailgate. Even with that base figure, you could conceivably be talking about 100 new infections each game, or 600 for the season. For reference, Delaware County has had just over 400 positive cases through this whole thing. At a school like Michigan, that comes to about 1,000 new infections each game, based on their 100,000+ average attendance. So schools could take measures that protests haven't, such as suggesting everyone wear face mask, but that would be hard to enforce once fans entered the stadium. I suspect the yelling that takes place during a game would be comparable to what happens as a protest, so maybe not much difference there. Of course, at a BSU game with 10,000 you can pretty easily socially distance if you want to, but that would be harder to do at Michigan. In the end, maybe the bigger factor would be the health of the players. If you aren't on top of it and an outbreak happens among the team, even if it's just one team in each conference that has to shut down its season, then schedules start to have holes. It gets messy. Some of the big conferences might be willing to deal with that, but would the MAC? I don't know. I understand where you are coming from and you make some excellent points. I think there would need to be things done to mitigate risks. Having stadiums filled to capacity probably wouldn't work. What are they doing now with opening restaurants (at least in the state of Texas where I live)? They are limiting seating capacity to 50% and it was only 25% when they first re-opened. For this season at least, probably need to do the same. Only 30,000 folks would be allowed to attend your University of Michigan game for example. Every 3rd seat filled with 2 empty seats between each fan. A lottery might be necessary to see who got to attend if demand exceeded the limited capacity. Older fans and fans with underlying health conditions probably should sit this season out which would make limiting capacity to 30% for that Michigan game easier. For fans 18 to 65 who are healthy, even if you contract Covid-19 at a game, your chance of dying, or even getting seriously ill is infinitesimally low. Certainly not zero, but close. IMHO, about the same as driving 100 miles to a Saturday game over icy, snow covered roads. I'm sure each year there are folks who get injured or even die driving to, or coming home from sporting events. They don't cancel the season when someone dies that way. You need to accept some risk in life. As long as you understand what the risk is, you should be able to make an intelligent decision. If the risk is too much for you, don't go. Watch the game on television at home. Players getting it during season will be an issue. Testing will need to be done before each game and those who test positive not allowed to participate. It will be like an injury. The only difference is when your starting QB blows-out his knee, he's done for the season. In the case of Covid-19, after 7 to 14 days of quarantine, your player should be able to test negative and return to action. It will test a team's depth and be worse for MAC teams that don't have several 3 and 4 star recruits at each position. Could it become so bad a team might need to forfeit a particular game; maybe? But healthy folks get over this just like they do the flu and return to their normal lives. Just keep it out of nursing homes and away from folks with pre-existing conditions and we will be just fine. Neither of those groups should be playing football anyway.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Jun 15, 2020 22:06:18 GMT -6
Several Dallas cowboys and Houston Texans players have tested positive COVID. Are they in the group of people who shouldn’t be playing football anyway?
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 16, 2020 6:31:09 GMT -6
It's true enough that only about 15-20% of college age people are vulnerable with asthma, diabetes, heart disease, etc. That means most will come through after perhaps a nasty flu.
OTOH we don't know how many suffer long term side effects.
And we do know they could transmit the virus to others. Family, coaches, administrators, faculty, staff, fans, and so on are all at higher risk when FB starts. For that matter 20K students back in Muncie create risk for the community.
We opened up before we met very optimistic federal guidelines. Have not really met benchmarks as we hit each phase. Adding the risk on top of a risky experiment should not be dismissed so easily.
We have enough new cases now nation wide to have 800-1000 deaths a day. We have flattened the curve but are risking a new wave more severe than this one.
We are essentially at or near the peak of the first wave. Not safely past it.
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Jun 16, 2020 8:15:13 GMT -6
Just so much to consider, and I don't think we've thought of half the stuff that would have to be changed.
Sure you can limit attendance to a percentage of capacity, but I don't think you'll really be able to control where people sit or how much they come in contact in areas around the playing field, the hill, concessions and restroom areas, etc. Can I sit with my wife and kids, or do we have to sit 2-3 seats away? Do you expect a 5-10 year old to be able to sit for 2-3 hours by themselves with their parents seats away?
I guess there are no tents on the hill and suites are limited, and of course the susceptible old folks who are major financial donors can't come to the games because they're in that high-risk group. Are we letting the band play? Are we allowing tailgating? Are we allowing concessions at all?
As for players, what is the cost of testing? I have no idea, but I figure it's not free. We've got 92 kids on the roster. They're surrounded by a support staff of coaches, managers, trainers, etc., that probably numbers 30-50 if not more. All would need to be tested weekly if not more frequently. Even if only once a week, that's 120-140 tests a week during a 3-4 month period. We know the program already runs in the red. Are we willing to spend even more money that we don't have?
And if a player has to go into quarantine, how does that work? I don't know where most players live. Are they in normal dorm rooms, suites, off-campus apartments or houses? Do they share bathrooms, kitchens, general living spaces with others and, if so, does the quarantined player or roommates get sent elsewhere, and where would that be? How would they get food during quarantine? How would they get laundry done? Could their classes be easily done online?
For the conferences with big TV contracts, it's probably worth it to them to figure all this stuff out.
But for the MAC? Once you've gutted the game-day experience by removing tailgating, the band, possibly concessions, limiting interaction among fans, combined with the fact that you're spending even more money you don't have on 2,000 COVID-19 tests, is it really worth it?
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 16, 2020 10:01:09 GMT -6
For the high majors they have TV contracts and probably can expand that contract a bit.
For the MAC, depending on what other sports programming is available their mid week games may actually be watched more. But the contract probably will not mean extra revenue for the schools. The network will get a Covid windfall.
The good news is that we already lose so much money and have such low attendance that we don't lose THAT much revenue. It is still a lot in our small overall budget but we can maybe survive a year by cutting budget back and of course cutting other non revenue sports to subsidize FB.
At least that seems to be the plan.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Jun 16, 2020 10:10:38 GMT -6
I have talked to a few people and the common theme Ive gathered is they have some sort of plan for many situations but the reality is everyone is playing it by ear.
Attendance issues are going to be left to state regulations so IN Ohio and Michigan could all be different.
The Ncaa and Mac says football is going to played so schools really have no choice on the ultimate decision of to play or not to play
The last sentence every one has said is.. "unless something changes"
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Jun 16, 2020 12:16:24 GMT -6
The other thing that comes to mind goes somewhat beyond safety. The major pro leagues - NFL, NBA, MLB - have all had negotiations between the owners and the players unions regarding the situation.
The NCAA also needs to make sure all stakeholders are OK with playing going forward. The NCAA and its universities, in the recent past, already have come under fire for exploiting college athletes for financial gain. If they go forward with the season and shit goes south with several teams suffering outbreaks, the NCAA and university leaders could then come under fire for putting the health of those athletes at unnecessary risk for mere financial gain.
Will the NCAA and university presidents want to face that potential criticism?
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 16, 2020 12:35:45 GMT -6
The pro athletes have more leverage and have professionals advising them. College athletes are not clueless entirely, may be reluctant to play if they have a choice.
But if everyone is back in school I'd guess they choose to play. Partly because they believe they are invulnerable, partly because the great majority are effectively taking small risk.
The adults in the room have to weigh the part where some are vulnerable and how that will play if a kid or a coach or others are impacted severely, and it is traced back to the sports decision.
It appears for now the NCAA and Presidents are right now willing to take the bet. As Rob says depending on what happens later. But given the dynamic with reopening, that becomes easy to ignore as the time scheduled gets closer.
More likely to me is thy wait until a serious problem arises and then and only then back down.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Jun 16, 2020 12:51:10 GMT -6
We just got our elementary and high school schedules. From the looks its business as usual. Sept to Jan have 1 week per month out with e learning to deep clean these weeks are put next to fall break and christmas break to create longer 2 week breaks in october and only 6 real school days in December. Then 1 week breaks in sept and november. Jan-June look like a normal year
I am just glad its not something like half the kids mwf the other tue/thursday or vice versa.. Working parents can not do that nor can they do full e learning
From a local level, youth football is looking to be all systems go. Baseball tournaments started back this past weekend.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 16, 2020 13:30:13 GMT -6
We just got our elementary and high school schedules. From the looks its business as usual. Sept to Jan have 1 week per month out with e learning to deep clean these weeks are put next to fall break and christmas break to create longer 2 week breaks in october and only 6 real school days in December. Then 1 week breaks in sept and november. Jan-June look like a normal year I am just glad its not something like half the kids mwf the other tue/thursday or vice versa.. Working parents can not do that nor can they do full e learning From a local level, youth football is looking to be all systems go. Baseball tournaments started back this past weekend. That age the kids are probably safe. Parents even fairly safe although quite possible they have a severe bout of illness. I guess I worry about teachers, many older, grandparents, staff and older coaches and organizers. And about how it could be another vector to see a really severe second wave.
I'm sure you are worried a little. It would not be the worst idea to have the kids cut back. And I am sure you have talked to them about older people being high risk. Kids seem to get that from my observation. My grandkids make a point in video calls to tell me they are wearing a mask at their sports meetings, that I can't come to see them play without being careful, and warning me to wear my mask and stay away from people who are coughing...not bad advice from a 2nd grader.
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Jun 16, 2020 13:48:58 GMT -6
Several Dallas cowboys and Houston Texans players have tested positive COVID. Are they in the group of people who shouldn’t be playing football anyway? Yep, I'm not going to draft Zek Elliott for my fantasy football team this season since he is one of the Cowboys who has tested positive for Covid-19! Actually, it makes him more desirable to draft as he will be over Covid-19 and probably immune for the actual season. It's the guy who doesn't have Covid-19 now, gets it in week 14 and misses week 15 and 16 (fantasy playoffs) that will wreck your fantasy football team for 2020. As for your question, most professional athletes don't have underlying conditions. There are a few. The Chicago Cubs had a pitcher last year who was a diabetic, Brandon Morrow. Heck of a pitcher a few year's back with the Dodgers, but always injured with the Cubs. A football player like him probably should consider not playing this season, although it's a little too late if you have already tested positive. I don't think there are any professional athletes who live in nursing homes. For the most part, professional athletes are some of the most healthy people on the planet and would be the best to deal with any Covid-19 infection.
|
|