The ACC will delay the start of competition for all fall sports until at least Sept. 1

GTFLETCH

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,602
"I'm not worried [about not playing football]," said TCU coach Gary Patterson, who is also the current AFCA president. "We can only do what we can do. I would suspect that, if they have to cut back the season, people are going to lose their nonconference games. That's one theory out there. That hurts the lower levels for financial reasons. Everybody is going to have to pay a price."

Link
https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...gLWVOc2VDCSle_j8HR58ngi1CBChMsBiaALS6cSO-wB4U
 

gtchem05

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
101
Thanks for starting a new thread on this. I'm posting here sort of as a continuation to the direction that the 2020 off-season thread was heading. This is long, gets pretty technical, and is also just one other idiot's opinion. So please feel free to ignore. I don't plan on posting many more times on this. So, I figured I'd try to get most of my thoughts out in one post.

Red, thanks for mentioning the model from the University of Washington. Here's a link for anyone that is curious http://www.healthdata.org/covid/faqs I first became aware of this site about a week ago and think it's pretty cool particularly for predicting hospital resource availability for individual states. I did read the part about 97% of the US population being susceptible after the first wave. I would be interested to know what data is being used to arrive at that 97%. Unfortunately, I couldn't figure it out from the website. My guess, however, is that they are likely making a projection about the number of people in the US who will have been exposed to the virus during the first wave using the current number of people that have tested positive and the pace at which this has occurred. This is not unreasonable because it is really the only hard data available, but it would almost certainly be a very large underestimate of exposure as there are many people who have minimal to no symptoms who aren't being tested.

It is probable that that there will be a second wave of the virus, and a third, etc. but these will likely be akin to aftershocks from an earthquake in that they will be significantly less severe. Our healthcare system will probably be able to manage this second wave without the shortages in supplies, beds, and staffing that we are seeing now. If this is indeed true, there will be no indication to implement the type of social restrictions we are seeing now whenever a second wave comes. I will say that once the first wave diminishes, we are likely to see intermittent local outbreaks for months to years that will need to be managed with isolation precautions, but nothing that will require sweeping nationwide isolation.

In thinking about the upcoming football season, I would like to share thoughts about the social isolation we are experiencing now. This type of isolation at the moment is absolutely necessary, but it is a marginally effective blunt instrument that carries with it a lot of collateral damage. I have generally not been happy with the response from our commander-in-chief, but I think he had a fair point when he said that, "We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself." This isolation follows the law of diminishing returns, and I suspect that once we reach 8-12 weeks of it, we will have reached a point where its risks outweigh its benefits. Obviously, this doesn't mean that we will just return to life as usual, but the shelter-in-place rules are going to disappear and are unlikely to return on a nation-wide scale.

Hindsight is 20-20, but as a nation were caught off guard especially in regard to testing. However, we have a chance to catch up with immunity testing which is expected to be available in 3-5 weeks. It will be interesting to see how this is used, but for large groups of people that regularly meet together - such as a football team, for example - this type of testing may prove very valuable.

Lastly, why am I posting my opinion on COVID-19 on this message board? Basically, I see a lot of worry in the world and it's a legitimate response to what's going on. But what I don't want to see is unnecessary worry. Lets's be concerned about the elderly and chronically ill and try to protect them as best we can. Sadly, there's still risk for the young and healthy too, but exposure to COVID-19 is not something that is avoidable for long for the vast majority of people. Let's flatten this curve and then get back to work. Life will never be the same after this. Sporting events like football will look different particularly for the fans, but sports is undoubtedly of great benefit to our society and especially to us Hell of Engineers. I'm optimistic we will see the brave and bold on Grant Field September 3rd and hope there is a whole lot of white and gold in the stands watching.
 

Supersizethatorder-mutt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,229
Location
Augusta, GA
Thanks for starting a new thread on this. I'm posting here sort of as a continuation to the direction that the 2020 off-season thread was heading. This is long, gets pretty technical, and is also just one other idiot's opinion. So please feel free to ignore. I don't plan on posting many more times on this. So, I figured I'd try to get most of my thoughts out in one post.

Red, thanks for mentioning the model from the University of Washington. Here's a link for anyone that is curious http://www.healthdata.org/covid/faqs I first became aware of this site about a week ago and think it's pretty cool particularly for predicting hospital resource availability for individual states. I did read the part about 97% of the US population being susceptible after the first wave. I would be interested to know what data is being used to arrive at that 97%. Unfortunately, I couldn't figure it out from the website. My guess, however, is that they are likely making a projection about the number of people in the US who will have been exposed to the virus during the first wave using the current number of people that have tested positive and the pace at which this has occurred. This is not unreasonable because it is really the only hard data available, but it would almost certainly be a very large underestimate of exposure as there are many people who have minimal to no symptoms who aren't being tested.

It is probable that that there will be a second wave of the virus, and a third, etc. but these will likely be akin to aftershocks from an earthquake in that they will be significantly less severe. Our healthcare system will probably be able to manage this second wave without the shortages in supplies, beds, and staffing that we are seeing now. If this is indeed true, there will be no indication to implement the type of social restrictions we are seeing now whenever a second wave comes. I will say that once the first wave diminishes, we are likely to see intermittent local outbreaks for months to years that will need to be managed with isolation precautions, but nothing that will require sweeping nationwide isolation.

In thinking about the upcoming football season, I would like to share thoughts about the social isolation we are experiencing now. This type of isolation at the moment is absolutely necessary, but it is a marginally effective blunt instrument that carries with it a lot of collateral damage. I have generally not been happy with the response from our commander-in-chief, but I think he had a fair point when he said that, "We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself." This isolation follows the law of diminishing returns, and I suspect that once we reach 8-12 weeks of it, we will have reached a point where its risks outweigh its benefits. Obviously, this doesn't mean that we will just return to life as usual, but the shelter-in-place rules are going to disappear and are unlikely to return on a nation-wide scale.

Hindsight is 20-20, but as a nation were caught off guard especially in regard to testing. However, we have a chance to catch up with immunity testing which is expected to be available in 3-5 weeks. It will be interesting to see how this is used, but for large groups of people that regularly meet together - such as a football team, for example - this type of testing may prove very valuable.

Lastly, why am I posting my opinion on COVID-19 on this message board? Basically, I see a lot of worry in the world and it's a legitimate response to what's going on. But what I don't want to see is unnecessary worry. Lets's be concerned about the elderly and chronically ill and try to protect them as best we can. Sadly, there's still risk for the young and healthy too, but exposure to COVID-19 is not something that is avoidable for long for the vast majority of people. Let's flatten this curve and then get back to work. Life will never be the same after this. Sporting events like football will look different particularly for the fans, but sports is undoubtedly of great benefit to our society and especially to us Hell of Engineers. I'm optimistic we will see the brave and bold on Grant Field September 3rd and hope there is a whole lot of white and gold in the stands watching.
Your last paragraph spells out exactly what I tried to post when we were told there would be a new politics only thread, that being that it is impossible to divorce politics from virtually anything being discussed in the world today, including Tech (or any) football.
 

grandpa jacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
500
"I'm not worried [about not playing football]," said TCU coach Gary Patterson, who is also the current AFCA president. "We can only do what we can do. I would suspect that, if they have to cut back the season, people are going to lose their nonconference games. That's one theory out there. That hurts the lower levels for financial reasons. Everybody is going to have to pay a price."

Link
https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...gLWVOc2VDCSle_j8HR58ngi1CBChMsBiaALS6cSO-wB4U
So we would not play ugag
 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
4,213
I'm going to post this over from the other thread as I think it is the most in-depth discussion of this topic and college athletics in general to date.

https://www.si.com/college/2020/04/08/college-football-future-2020-ncaa-coronavirus

They are definitely going to try to figure out a way to play as much of a schedule as possible to limit the economic hits AA's are taking (loss of basketball revenue, loss of donor donations, lower ticket sales, likely loss of revenue from gameday). But I still don't see the likelihood of getting a full season in as better than 50%.

I will say if you made me place a bet there will be more college football games than college basketball games.
The issue is two-fold. First, you can't just decide you are going to play football and start immediately. There is significant ramp up time needed - from first simply having some nuitrition and conditioning work. To then going to practices to finally having games. If players aren't on campus by early July ( and i'm not convinced they will be) then starting the season on time becomes very unlikely.

Then you have the backend. There is an expectation of another wave starting in the late fall - probably November. Unlike 1918, hopefully this one won't be worst than the 1st wave, but even so, there is an expectation that some mitigation measures will need to be taken. The first ones to be taken will likely be the discontinuing of any large scale gatherings (conventions, sporting events, etc) assuming those are allowed to start up once we start to loosen restrictions (it is likely that large scale gatherings will be the last piece that is relaxed).

My belief is that the season will start, hopefully we get most of a conference schedule in, but I think there will be no bowls, possibly no conference championship games. I think there is a pretty good chance of a limited to no basketball season that given how many basketball games there are on a weekly basis and its overlap with flu season, I don't think it is going to be allowed.
 

stech81

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,287
Location
Woodstock Georgia
Is Notre Dame considered a non conference foe?

And how about this idea, only season ticket holders can attend games (stinger mobile pass is a season ticket). No single game tickets. No game day sales. Only recruits and families will be allowed to enter without season tickets.
I would think they would be non-conference cause it does not show up as a conference game. But I have been wrong before I got married to someone I thought could cook.
 

Supersizethatorder-mutt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,229
Location
Augusta, GA
With no on campus classes during the summer, how are we going to have any pre-season practice at all? Are athletes granted an exemption for whether or not they can go on campus? And if there is no pre-season practice, there is no way we can have a season.
 

g0lftime

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,444
Is Notre Dame considered a non conference foe?

And how about this idea, only season ticket holders can attend games (stinger mobile pass is a season ticket). No single game tickets. No game day sales. Only recruits and families will be allowed to enter without season tickets.
What about us grads that come from out of state for homecoming. I look forward to that game every year to reunite with some of my frat boys.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,398
"I'm not worried [about not playing football]," said TCU coach Gary Patterson, who is also the current AFCA president. "We can only do what we can do. I would suspect that, if they have to cut back the season, people are going to lose their nonconference games. That's one theory out there. That hurts the lower levels for financial reasons. Everybody is going to have to pay a price."

Link
https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...gLWVOc2VDCSle_j8HR58ngi1CBChMsBiaALS6cSO-wB4U

I'm not getting this. Why would it be alright to play half the season but not the whole season? Seems to me you would play all of them or none of them. Would you have less chance of getting coronavirus in a conference game? I just don't get the logic.
 

684Bee

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,186
I'm not getting this. Why would it be alright to play half the season but not the whole season? Seems to me you would play all of them or none of them. Would you have less chance of getting coronavirus in a conference game? I just don't get the logic.

I think it’s about buying time. A shorter season allows you to start later. The later they start, the further along we are toward treatments/vaccine/herd immunity, etc. It also possibly allows to get in a full Fall practice schedule, which would be badly needed.
 

g0lftime

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,444
Could end up with no OOC games and maybe start a little later with games well into December. Could wreck the bowls and playoffs but those can go well into January. I just want some sort of football season as long as its safe for the players and fans.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,398
Could end up with no OOC games and maybe start a little later with games well into December. Could wreck the bowls and playoffs but those can go well into January. I just want some sort of football season as long as its safe for the players and fans.

You could have a full season, but without the fans. Test all the players to cut down on the chance anyone on the field could be infected. The home team could just pipe in the fan noise (I'll bet we'd screw that up royally). I'm not advocating this, but just saying...

A football game without fans would be a weird spectacle, though.
 
Top