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

[jacket_fan]

As time progresses, there is a glimmer of hope.

My secret hope is that most of college football has a season and the fruits and nuts in California prevent football.

This is meant as humor.

I agree, that whatever happens it will be an unusual and historic season.

 

[Buzztheirazz]

Don’t forget the flakes!

 

[orientalnc]

There is a new study published yesterday that suggests college students who left campus for Spring Break were more likely to be infected with COVID-19 than students whose college break was scheduled later, after the shutdown orders. It is very interesting.

I wonder if students returning to campus in the Fall (late Summer) might test positive at higher rates than would be expected in the broader population. They are less likely to follow social distancing recommendations because they feel less vulnerable and are more likely to be asymptomatic.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3606811

 

[Techster]

The one thing that can throw a wrench into everything is if we start getting large spikes across the country in infections and hospitalizations. Even if teams can keep players and coaches isolated and in a bubble, the optics of playing sports while the country is battling outbreak 2.0 wouldn't be good. Also, given how stringent the would want isolation if a player/coach gets infected, and if they take it further with contact tracing, then you could talk about half the team being in isolation.

I think we've been all cooped up for so long that any news is good news, but this thing will hang over everyone in terms of hoping the screen doesn't rip letting in all the flies.

 

[FredJacket]

The one thing that can throw a wrench into everything is if we start getting large spikes across the country in infections and hospitalizations. Even if teams can keep players and coaches isolated and in a bubble, the optics of playing sports while the country is battling outbreak 2.0 wouldn't be good. Also, given how stringent the would want isolation if a player/coach gets infected, and if they take it further with contact tracing, then you could talk about half the team being in isolation.

I think we've been all cooped up for so long that any news is good news, but this thing will hang over everyone in terms of hoping the screen doesn't rip letting in all the flies.

Any news on progress is good news. ...and the 'wrench' you mention (or wrenches) are a real possibility. I do believe the momentum on 'management' of the virus going forward has shifted (properly) to one where we should and will react on a local level to squash any spread of an outbreak. Truthfully... most situations will be unique and will require a tailored response. That applies to everything; but true for football programs and college campuses too.

If the goal is to play college football in the fall to max extent practical, we/they should keep in mind there are 130 FBS teams scattered all over the country. Some in small towns and some in large cities... and all in between. Let's just say for the sake of argument 10% of the teams can't even get started due to the virus... that means 117 teams still can. Then let's say 15% of those have a significant event that forces some version of a "stop" where they cannot play. There are still 100 teams able to compete. It probably won't be pretty/clean...may demand some flexibility and perhaps not all teams end up playing the same number of games.

I would definitely appreciate an EFFORT put in to coming up with a reasonable (not perfect) way to proceed with all sports.... not just football. Prepare for problems and respond. It seems like it can be done. If you don't want football until there is some guarantee not a single player/coach/staff member/family member/student will contract C19, then ok. I do not believe that is a reasonable constraint on the problem though.

 

[orientalnc]

Any news on progress is good news. ...and the 'wrench' you mention (or wrenches) are a real possibility. I do believe the momentum on 'management' of the virus going forward has shifted (properly) to one where we should and will react on a local level to squash any spread of an outbreak. Truthfully... most situations will be unique and will require a tailored response. That applies to everything; but true for football programs and college campuses too.

If the goal is to play college football in the fall to max extent practical, we/they should keep in mind there are 130 FBS teams scattered all over the country. Some in small towns and some in large cities... and all in between. Let's just say for the sake of argument 10% of the teams can't even get started due to the virus... that means 117 teams still can. Then let's say 15% of those have a significant event that forces some version of a "stop" where they cannot play. There are still 100 teams able to compete. It probably won't be pretty/clean...may demand some flexibility and perhaps not all teams end up playing the same number of games.

I would definitely appreciate an EFFORT put in to coming up with a reasonable (not perfect) way to proceed with all sports.... not just football. Prepare for problems and respond. It seems like it can be done. If you don't want football until there is some guarantee not a single player/coach/staff member/family member/student will contract C19, then ok. I do not believe that is a reasonable constraint on the problem though.

If football is the only sport that comes back in the Fall, then the colleges are admitting they have professional teams with unpaid athletes.

 

[DvilleJacket]

Paul Finebaum guaranteed college football yesterday on ESPN. Talked about our Governor saying we will have football in our state.

 

[stech81]

If football is the only sport that comes back in the Fall, then the colleges are admitting they have professional teams with unpaid athletes.

You may want to rethink the unpaid part at some schools

 

[Techster]

Any news on progress is good news. ...and the 'wrench' you mention (or wrenches) are a real possibility. I do believe the momentum on 'management' of the virus going forward has shifted (properly) to one where we should and will react on a local level to squash any spread of an outbreak. Truthfully... most situations will be unique and will require a tailored response. That applies to everything; but true for football programs and college campuses too.

If the goal is to play college football in the fall to max extent practical, we/they should keep in mind there are 130 FBS teams scattered all over the country. Some in small towns and some in large cities... and all in between. Let's just say for the sake of argument 10% of the teams can't even get started due to the virus... that means 117 teams still can. Then let's say 15% of those have a significant event that forces some version of a "stop" where they cannot play. There are still 100 teams able to compete. It probably won't be pretty/clean...may demand some flexibility and perhaps not all teams end up playing the same number of games.

I would definitely appreciate an EFFORT put in to coming up with a reasonable (not perfect) way to proceed with all sports.... not just football. Prepare for problems and respond. It seems like it can be done. If you don't want football until there is some guarantee not a single player/coach/staff member/family member/student will contract C19, then ok. I do not believe that is a reasonable constraint on the problem though.

Let's remember, sports is competition, which means it takes 2 parties (maybe not golf). If one team has an infection outbreak, that means the other team they're playing that week isn't playing either. Can't play if the entire QB room is infected/or in isolation, or half the basketball team is infected. The bigger issue is sports requires contact and heavy deep breathing. I brought this up previously, but if the players refuse to play because some of their teammates are infected and they don't want to be put in harms way, how do you deal with that? You can't force them to play because you'll face a line of lawyers.

We all want sports to resume. I think the nation could use sports in the worst way right now. But the problem is sports involves more than 1 person...especially team sports. Sports is also a luxury, not a necessity...even though it's more religion than sport to some. Unfortunately, in the litigious society we live in, you'll see schools and conferences err on the side of safety.

Let's also keep in mind if a state goes into shelter in place again, then what? Everyone has shelter in place except for the athletes? How do you optically deal with the fact that you've told citizens to remain home, but you're telling teams it's OK for them to make physical contact with another human being that's sweating and breathing hard? If you have a game scheduled with another team from a state where shelter in place doesn't allow them to practice have games...then what? You can go down a rabbit hole of monkey wrenches...and that's just reality right now.

It's tough. Sports has always been a national unifier and something to take our minds away from reality (See: 911, every war in the modern era, times of national tragedy, etc.), but this is whole different animal we're dealing with.

Let's hope for the best. It's a BIG year for our two main sports. Football team just got our best recruiting class since 2007 and some key transfers, and the basketball team has our best team since the Hewitt days coming off a top 5 ACC finish. GT stands to gain a LOT of national exposure this year.

 

[FredJacket]

Let's remember, sports is competition, which means it takes 2 parties (maybe not golf). If one team has an infection outbreak, that means the other team they're playing that week isn't playing either. Can't play if the entire QB room is infected/or in isolation, or half the basketball team is infected. The bigger issue is sports requires contact and heavy deep breathing. I brought this up previously, but if the players refuse to play because some of their teammates are infected and they don't want to be put in harms way, how do you deal with that? You can't force them to play because you'll face a line of lawyers.

We all want sports to resume. I think the nation could use sports in the worst way right now. But the problem is sports involves more than 1 person...especially team sports. Sports is also a luxury, not a necessity...even though it's more religion than sport to some. Unfortunately, in the litigious society we live in, you'll see schools and conferences err on the side of safety.

Let's also keep in mind if a state goes into shelter in place again, then what? Everyone has shelter in place except for the athletes? How do you optically deal with the fact that you've told citizens to remain home, but you're telling teams it's OK for them to make physical contact with another human being that's sweating and breathing hard? If you have a game scheduled with another team from a state where shelter in place doesn't allow them to practice have games...then what? You can go down a rabbit hole of monkey wrenches...and that's just reality right now.

It's tough. Sports has always been a national unifier and something to take our minds away from reality (See: 911, every war in the modern era, times of national tragedy, etc.), but this is whole different animal we're dealing with.

Let's hope for the best. It's a BIG year for our two main sports. Football team just got our best recruiting class since 2007 and some key transfers, and the basketball team has our best team since the Hewitt days coming off a top 5 ACC finish. GT stands to gain a LOT of national exposure this year.

No argument from me. Your focus (of your post) is the "what if" there is an outbreak on a team. My point/focus is "what about" the teams with no outbreaks... an assumed (after testing/monitoring) C19-free pair of teams. Let them play. Yes... there is risk; but not that high... I don't think.

Your scenarios of bunch (or one) sick player could happen and you figure out how to protect everyone involved. It could mean cancelled games.

Your optics point. I don't see it that way. Like I said earlier... we are past (never really had) a "national" outbreak. There are hot spots of varying severity and locale. I can speak only for me wrt to the optics of your scenario. I live in Virginia. Should we have the need to shelter in place at some point during the football season, I would WELCOME the opportunity to turn on the TV and watch a game in Alabama or Georgia or Texas. I'd hope that would happen where it was safe.

 

[Techster]

Here's a good read about how the German soccer league was able to start up, and how they're dealing with soccer during these times. No doubt sports leagues across the world have probably studied their model extensively for applications in their own leagues:



Here's the key, and probably the key to containing this virus. I think we all know this, but the US has been extremely lacking with this:

“That we’re allowed to play again boils down to German politics for managing this crisis, and the health system in Germany,” DFL CEO Christian Seifert told reporters. “If I were to name the number of tests that I was asked about in teleconferences with other professional leagues, with American professional leagues, with clubs from the NFL, the NHL, Major League Baseball and others, and I tell them how many tests are possible in Germany, they generally check, or there’s silence, because it’s just unimaginable in the situation over there.”

Unfortunately, it's become a loaded and polarizing aspect in the US's fight against the virus. It shouldn't be...but here we are.

 

[Techster]

No argument from me. Your focus (of your post) is the "what if" there is an outbreak on a team. My point/focus is "what about" the teams with no outbreaks... an assumed (after testing/monitoring) C19-free pair of teams. Let them play. Yes... there is risk; but not that high... I don't think.

Your scenarios of bunch (or one) sick player could happen and you figure out how to protect everyone involved. It could mean cancelled games.

Your optics point. I don't see it that way. Like I said earlier... we are past (never really had) a "national" outbreak. There are hot spots of varying severity and locale. I can speak only for me wrt to the optics of your scenario. I live in Virginia. Should we have the need to shelter in place at some point during the football season, I would WELCOME the opportunity to turn on the TV and watch a game in Alabama or Georgia or Texas. I'd hope that would happen where it was safe.

What our discussion boils down to is there are no easy answers. We all want sports, but safety and containing this virus is paramount to enjoyment fans will have in watching our teams. The virus isn't something that we can isolate like we do contaminated goods...the mobility of humans make it impossible, and we're beyond the point of real containment. What makes this worse, especially for US sports fans, is the fact that the US now has almost 30% of the worldwide infections, and almost 30% of the worldwide deaths from this virus (https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html). The US infection map is almost completely runover with red (cue the UGA jokes). Let's also keep in mind Football and Basketball season will overlap with the predicted second wave and normal flu season.

Like I said, let's all hope for the best. Hopefully a promising vaccine or drug will be developed before the first snap of practice. What we want, and what the government, the NCAA, and schools will have to deal will be at odds.

 

[RamblinRed]

Here's a good read about how the German soccer league was able to start up, and how they're dealing with soccer during these times. No doubt sports leagues across the world have probably studied their model extensively for applications in their own leagues:



Here's the key, and probably the key to containing this virus. I think we all know this, but the US has been extremely lacking with this:

“That we’re allowed to play again boils down to German politics for managing this crisis, and the health system in Germany,” DFL CEO Christian Seifert told reporters. “If I were to name the number of tests that I was asked about in teleconferences with other professional leagues, with American professional leagues, with clubs from the NFL, the NHL, Major League Baseball and others, and I tell them how many tests are possible in Germany, they generally check, or there’s silence, because it’s just unimaginable in the situation over there.”

Unfortunately, it's become a loaded and polarizing aspect in the US's fight against the virus. It shouldn't be...but here we are.

This is a great article. Really gives you a sense of everything they went through to get to play a game. What it makes me think is that we are headed in the right direction, but we are a long ways from kickoff still and the path isn't all clear yet. There are so many details that have to be dealt with and you cannot play until they are.

 

[Milwaukee]

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Wonder how even the democrats in Michigan will react if Whitmer cancels Michigan and Michigan State football in the Fall. LOL

 

[IEEEWreck]

Wonder how even the democrats in Michigan will react if Whitmer cancels Michigan and Michigan State football in the Fall. LOL

They play football in Michigan?

Wait, nevermind that. They have higher education in Michigan? Are you sure?

 

[gtstinger776]

Here's a good read about how the German soccer league was able to start up, and how they're dealing with soccer during these times. No doubt sports leagues across the world have probably studied their model extensively for applications in their own leagues:



Here's the key, and probably the key to containing this virus. I think we all know this, but the US has been extremely lacking with this:

“That we’re allowed to play again boils down to German politics for managing this crisis, and the health system in Germany,” DFL CEO Christian Seifert told reporters. “If I were to name the number of tests that I was asked about in teleconferences with other professional leagues, with American professional leagues, with clubs from the NFL, the NHL, Major League Baseball and others, and I tell them how many tests are possible in Germany, they generally check, or there’s silence, because it’s just unimaginable in the situation over there.”

Unfortunately, it's become a loaded and polarizing aspect in the US's fight against the virus. It shouldn't be...but here we are.

Sports can definitely start With testing and contact tracing. But the question will be - why are we leveraging testing capacity for sports over the general public? The optics wont look good if we’re using thousands of tests per sports team if testing remains scarce in other portions of the population.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Sports can definitely start With testing and contact tracing. But the question will be - why are we leveraging testing capacity for sports over the general public? The optics wont look good if we’re using thousands of tests per sports team if testing remains scarce in other portions of the population.

The only optic that’s important is GT kicking the football off to Clemp on 9/3. The rest of the optics are just diversions to fill the time between now & then.

 

[GTFLETCH]

There is a fact of life in Division I athletics that cannot be ignored. Football is responsible for 85% of an athletic department's revenue—if not more. At many schools the only other sport that pays its way is men's basketball, although at a few and a I mean a very few others..... the wrestling or hockey programs provide financial support, and women's basketball comes close to avoiding red ink. Again that is a few!!!

Translation: If football can't be played, schools most likely will have to cancel all sports.

And don't get caught up on the idea that they could play football in the spring. It would be ill-advised to think schools could play in March, April and May, and expect players to be back in camp the following August for the start of another season.

Translation: There will be sports in the fall! Thank God for Football! Go Jackets!

 

[Techster]

Sports can definitely start With testing and contact tracing. But the question will be - why are we leveraging testing capacity for sports over the general public? The optics wont look good if we’re using thousands of tests per sports team if testing remains scarce in other portions of the population.

Definitely....BUT, what if you test and your entire QB room is infected, or your OLs are infected? That group would have to be isolated for 14 days. How do you play a game without your QBs or OLs? It's November, the height of flu season and the targeted date for the virus to rear it's ugly head again for the predicted second wave, and UGA game is this coming weekend. Tickets and hotel rooms have been sold and booked for weeks even months. Then, on Wednesday, test results come back and our entire QB room is infected, and several guys along the DL and LBs are infected from a installation meeting. They have to isolate immediately. Now what? Can you imagine, say 'Bama and LSU playing a top 10 matchup and half the roster is decimated because players are infected?

Here's OpEd on the potential conflict of interests and abuses that the schools and players face:

https://www.ajc.com/blog/mike-check...allow-campus-workouts/xB10PzPVhnezYYYmIiEHHP/

I'm hearing a lot of "there's too much money, the schools need to play or else they're going to lose a LOT of revenue..." Well, that ignores the fact that you can't force players to play, and you can't force fans to show up. You definitely can't force players to play if they're sick...I mean you can, but you better be willing to get sued for an amount that may make your athletic department insolvent because no insurance is covering negligence and intentional harm.