Jump to content

College Football in 2020 in danger?


The_Great_Hornsby

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Don Johnson said:

I see it the exact opposite.  The NFL is going to make a business decision.  The NFL Players Union is also going to make a business decision.  I have little doubt the league will want to play.  The Union may think about it, but at the end of the day, the players aren't going to want to give up a year of their careers for something that essentially doesn't affect anyone their age.

Universities on the other hand.....AD's will want to play, coaches will want to play, most players will want to play, but Presidents and Chancellors will be much more risk adverse.

I wonder if CCP-19 considers PED abuse an underlying condition.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ESPN article discussing CFB in 2020.  Herman talking about virtual coaching up of the players. The article discusses the possibility of a short postponement with a modified/reduced fall schedule (question mark on fans);  postponement to Spring 2021; or cancellation, which would kill a lot of athletic departments.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, TexasEx said:

ESPN article discussing CFB in 2020.  Herman talking about virtual coaching up of the players. The article discusses the possibility of a short postponement with a modified/reduced fall schedule (question mark on fans);  postponement to Spring 2021; or cancellation, which would kill a lot of athletic departments.  

by  the appropriate decision time we have will have a much clearer  idea of immunity, IFR, case load #s, vaccine, treatment. this shit evolves daily and we're a totally different nation than we were 4/1. Im still thinking itll be a delayed start, maybe late October-March season, and move signing days back, no spring ball, and move up fall camp a week or 2 to make up for spring ball loss.

 

having a college football season leading right up to march madness would be awesome. although tailgating might be in limbo if theyre trying to keep human interaction as safe and sober as possible if we're going to walk on thin ice  

Edited by MNLonghornFUKM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

although tailgating might be in limbo if theyre trying to keep human interaction as safe and sober as possible if we're going to walk on thin ice  

Fans will tailgate even if campus is being actively bombed by Russian jets

Seriously though, any outdoor sport that comes back with no fans is going to have to take tailgating into account. Not to mention fans hanging out as close to the stadium as possible, watching/listening to the action and cheering as loud as possible so players maybe hear them.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also today, Iowa said they plan to open campus June 1 and that includes allowing college athletes to practice and work out.

And Bowlsby was on Sirius XM where he seemed to indicate that he thinks football will start some time during the fall, but he is worried that all sports will have to stop-and-start based on outbreaks. He is concerned that CFP and March Madness will get canceled. I'm paraphrasing the DMN summary of his interview, I assume he was qualifying all that as hypothetical

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Bartles said:

Also today, Iowa said they plan to open campus June 1 and that includes allowing college athletes to practice and work out.

And Bowlsby was on Sirius XM where he seemed to indicate that he thinks football will start some time during the fall, but he is worried that all sports will have to stop-and-start based on outbreaks. He is concerned that CFP and March Madness will get canceled. I'm paraphrasing the DMN summary of his interview, I assume he was qualifying all that as hypothetical

yea those 3 games that constitute a "playoffs" will be fine. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

Wait til some colleges open up and others don't. Little schools taking big brothers air time on the networks, its gonna be a fucking shit show.

True but it's more than that.

A lot of parents aren't going to be willing to pay for online school.  They'll have no desire to pay the exorbitant costs of college education, for a Zoom and Skype education.  Some will just defer and keep their kids out for another semester.

Others will send their kids to the schools that DO reopen for on-campus classes.  So we're not just talking about little schools taking air time, we're talking about some schools taking away students-- taking away tuition dollars--  from others.  This is the reason we're watching the dominoes fall right now.  Baylor announces a couple of days ago, and with zero surprise, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and TCU all fall in line immediately.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, utee94 said:

True but it's more than that.

A lot of parents aren't going to be willing to pay for online school.  They'll have no desire to pay the exorbitant costs of college education, for a Zoom and Skype education.  Some will just defer and keep their kids out for another semester.

Others will send their kids to the schools that DO reopen for on-campus classes.  So we're not just talking about little schools taking air time, we're talking about some schools taking away students-- taking away tuition dollars--  from others.  This is the reason we're watching the dominoes fall right now.  Baylor announces a couple of days ago, and with zero surprise, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and TCU all fall in line immediately.

 

The trends I’m seeing so far is students are starting to wonder if they should take a gap year, and that number is increasing.

Also, my specific campus (part of a large community college in Houston) has seen enrollment for our honors program jump 95% for fall.  The statistics tell us these students who are opting to stay local are the top students who were going to attend major D1 universities in Texas in the fall.  

I don’t know that I agree with the last part.  You can’t just transfer right now for fall, unless you’re wiling to sit out the fall and hope for an in-person Spring start.   And if that’s the case, why transfer to begin with when your original university might be in-person in Spring 2021?  

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Pancho said:

The trends I’m seeing so far is students are starting to wonder if they should take a gap year, and that number is increasing.

Also, my specific campus (part of a large community college in Houston) has seen enrollment for our honors program jump 95% for fall.  The statistics tell us these students who are opting to stay local are the top students who were going to attend major D1 universities in Texas in the fall.  

I don’t know that I agree with the last part.  You can’t just transfer right now for fall, unless you’re wiling to sit out the fall and hope for an in-person Spring start.   And if that’s the case, why transfer to begin with when your original university might be in-person in Spring 2021?  

You don't anticipate universities becoming highly flexible with admissions, gaps, and readmissions?  I certainly do. Especially if they want the tuition dollars.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, utee94 said:

You don't anticipate universities becoming highly flexible with admissions, gaps, and readmissions?  I certainly do. Especially if they want the tuition dollars.

I’m not sure why @Onboard 2.0hated my post when there was noting negative in there.  Like what the fuck?

Anywho, to @utee94no I don’t see them being flexible as they would then have to explain why they let a transfer student into their university in July/August for the Fall semester but did not let in other transfer students before the original transfer deadline.  Not only that, it takes months for acceptance decisions even for transfers.  Colleges aren’t going to rush that just to get “bodies” on campus for tuition—well maybe A&M.  That would be really fishy and raise a lot of eyebrows.  On my end, I haven’t seen anyone discuss opening admissions and becoming flexible in admissions and admission standards just because of COVID.  They can’t just accept students willy nilly for the “tuition dollars.”  That would ruin the rep of the university and has the potential—albeit through a lot of layers—fuck up them up as it relates to accreditation. 

 

EDIT:  Forgot to add—no one at the FBS level is anticipating losing tens of thousands of students.  I think that’s where people are getting confused.  Now some FCS D2, D3, and NAIA schools?  They might be in some trouble. 

Money wise, colleges will be okay this next academic year.  Where we will feel the pain of losing $$$ is 2021-2022.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Pancho said:

I’m not sure why @Onboard 2.0hated my post when there was noting negative in there.  Like what the fuck?

Anywho, to @utee94no I don’t see them being flexible as they would then have to explain why they let a transfer student into their university in July/August for the Fall semester but did not let in other transfer students before the original transfer deadline.  Not only that, it takes months for acceptance decisions even for transfers.  Colleges aren’t going to rush that just to get “bodies” on campus for tuition—well maybe A&M.  That would be really fishy and raise a lot of eyebrows.  On my end, I haven’t seen anyone discuss opening admissions and becoming flexible in admissions and admission standards just because of COVID.  They can’t just accept students willy nilly for the “tuition dollars.”  That would ruin the rep of the university and has the potential—albeit through a lot of layers—fuck up them up as it relates to accreditation. 

 

EDIT:  Forgot to add—no one at the FBS level is anticipating losing tens of thousands of students.  I think that’s where people are getting confused.  Now some FCS D2, D3, and NAIA schools?  They might be in some trouble. 

Money wise, colleges will be okay this next academic year.  Where we will feel the pain of losing $$$ is 2021-2022.

I think colleges will be willing to do unusual things in unusual times.  I also think you're underestimating the upcoming hit to the top line this coming Fall-- but that's only for universities that choose not to return to campus.

And, as we're seeing, the dominoes are already falling in that direction, which simply underscores my point.

 

Edited by utee94
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, utee94 said:

I think colleges will be willing to do unusual things in unusual times.  I also think you're underestimating the upcoming hit to the top line this coming Fall-- but that's only for universities that choose not to return to campus.

And, as we're seeing, the dominoes are already falling in that direction, which simply underscores my point.

 

Well the problem is no dominoes have actually fallen just yet seeing as how most have announced they’ll be on campus starting in the fall.  I’m not sure what dominoes you’re talking about really.

Colleges are announcing they’ll be on campus—that’s fine.  I’m willing to bet they have a “go online” contingency plan in place just in case shit gets bad as we start the month of August or covid comes back in the middle of the semester—that’s also fine.  Most (emphasis on most) P5 schools will be fine academically if they go online for the fall.  Students know what’s coming and they can prepare.  As I said earlier, this isn’t going to be a loss of tens of thousands of students.  As I also said earlier, colleges will feel the hit for 2021-2022.  Also, if colleges were to do some unusual things for the fall, we would be hearing about them now.  You don’t do something unusual and out of the ordinary at the last minute in higher education.  And I’ve neither heard nor seen anything unusual other than the talk of students taking a gap year increasing.  

EDIT:  As I said in my earlier post—you can just do shit in higher ed to get “bodies” on campus for tuition dollars as you’ll risk ruining your accreditation.  No university—except for A&M—would want to do that.  

Now athletics?  That’s a different story because every athletic department in the country needs football to play for other sports to survive.  That’s different when compared to academics.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Newy25 said:

The idea that most Universities are not massive money making machines cloaked in academic altruism made me laugh. 
 

Publicly financed university and colleges are money consuming, not money making. UT Austin spends roughly $53,000 per student each year. About $43,000 of that is provided by public subsidies. That is about a $2B shortfall each year that is made up by subsidies. 

How exactly does an entity make massive amounts of money running multi-million dollar (if not multi-billion dollar) deficits? 

There may be an argument the institutions are too highly subsidized, but when they lose massive amounts of money each year and require massive subsidies, they aren’t “massive money making machines.” If we doubled the number of public universities, we would have less money, not more money. “Massive money making machines” create wealth. Public universities are not “massive money making machines.”

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Randolph Duke said:

Publicly financed university and colleges are money consuming, not money making. UT Austin spends roughly $53,000 per student each year. About $43,000 of that is provided by public subsidies. That is about a $2B shortfall each year that is made up by subsidies. 

How exactly does an entity make massive amounts of money running multi-million dollar (if not multi-billion dollar) deficits? 

There may be an argument the institutions are too highly subsidized, but when they lose massive amounts of money each year and require massive subsidies, they aren’t “massive money making machines.” If we doubled the number of public universities, we would have less money, not more money. “Massive money making machines” create wealth. Public universities are not “massive money making machines.”

This, this is 100% correct. 

The only “massive money making” universities are those that are diploma mills like Univ. of PHoenix and southern New Hampshire and even they aren’t making a shit ton of money.  Places like Harvard make money because, well it’s fucking Harvard.  

If colleges and universities were massive money makers and only in it to make money, then I’d be getting paid a lot more than I am. 

I think some posters are confusing college academics versus college athletics.  Now college athletics (really only D1)?  Those are massive money makers and in it for the money.  It’s weird how that’s the side of the institutional house that might suffer immediately because of this.  Academics will suffer a year from now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess: they'll have procedures in place, most likely 1-2 sporadic positives will just be isolated while everything continues. But two or more teammates or participants from the same game will probably shut the whole team(s) down for two weeks. That could be as inconvenient as the annual hurricane postponements or it could bring the whole sport to a stop. Not having ticketed fans makes re-scheduling easier FWIW.

The biggest hurdle, as with everything in the US, is lack of consistent and reliable testing. Everyone is just hoping that can be improved dramatically by September, but it's hard to see right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Bartles said:

My guess: they'll have procedures in place, most likely 1-2 sporadic positives will just be isolated while everything continues. But two or more teammates or participants from the same game will probably shut the whole team(s) down for two weeks. That could be as inconvenient as the annual hurricane postponements or it could bring the whole sport to a stop. Not having ticketed fans makes re-scheduling easier FWIW.

The biggest hurdle, as with everything in the US, is lack of consistent and reliable testing. Everyone is just hoping that can be improved dramatically by September, but it's hard to see right now.

 

Depends on if they use the same rules as a classroom.  We've been told if we go back into the classroom and 1 person in that class tests positive, everyone in the class has to automatically do a 14-day quarantine.  I couldn't imagine 1 teammate testing positive and everyone else going on as normal. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Any thoughts on what happens when players and students start testing positive?

This is the question I never hear any answers to, and don't hear many people asking in the first place. In F1, for example, there are plans in the works to hold an event in Austria with no fans. They want to do two races at the site in 5-6 days, and then do the same at some other European sites in order to get the race numbers up to satisfy the TV contracts. It will still be a fairly massive undertaking to do behind-closed-doors races under these conditions, because they will still need 1500-2000 people on site to run a race weekend. They're coming up with logistical plans trying to make it work, but I haven't heard anyone address what happens to the show once someone tests positive in a team, the race officials, the track marshals, the media, the medical staff, the caterers, etc.

Edited by wood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Depends on if they use the same rules as a classroom.  We've been told if we go back into the classroom and 1 person in that class tests positive, everyone in the class has to automatically do a 14-day quarantine.  I couldn't imagine 1 teammate testing positive and everyone else going on as normal. 

This is where frequent testing is so important. The teammates - if they continue to test negative - can be safely released much sooner. Maybe the original guy was false positive, or it was dead RNA, or simply a very mild form of the virus. Still risky, but welcome to 2020 sports.

But if it's like the Jazz-Thunder game where people on both sides popped up as positive, there will be no choice but to shut it down. We'll have a good example soon with Korean baseball. They have procedures in place to just stop everything for a couple weeks, though I'm not sure what the trigger point will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all the dudes who ever beat the shit out of a woman or caught got with felonious amounts of drugs or propagated double murders in a Miami night club or stabbed two dudes in a nightclub in Atlanta or tortured and murdered hosts of dogs in a felony sporting scheme or drunk drove and killed a pedestrian in Miami could be totally forgiven and forgotten in the name of all the money football makes their white, errr, beneficiaries... certainly a fatal pandemic won’t stop football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bartles said:

My guess: they'll have procedures in place, most likely 1-2 sporadic positives will just be isolated while everything continues. But two or more teammates or participants from the same game will probably shut the whole team(s) down for two weeks. That could be as inconvenient as the annual hurricane postponements or it could bring the whole sport to a stop. Not having ticketed fans makes re-scheduling easier FWIW.

The biggest hurdle, as with everything in the US, is lack of consistent and reliable testing. Everyone is just hoping that can be improved dramatically by September, but it's hard to see right now.

The season wouldnt even last two weeks with that approach. Good luck juggling 130 teams and schedules constantly changing etc... Not saying your criteria are unreasonable, just that I cant see any way that would work. You would also inevitably end up with teams that play different amounts of games due to cancellations and inability to reschedule. Shit A&M would purposefully dodge bama and LSU with the sickness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Covi

6 minutes ago, Blotto said:

The season wouldnt even last two weeks with that approach. Good luck juggling 130 teams and schedules constantly changing etc... Not saying your criteria are unreasonable, just that I cant see any way that would work. You would also inevitably end up with teams that play different amounts of games due to cancellations and inability to reschedule. Shit A&M would purposefully dodge bama and LSU with the sickness. 

Heat cramp flopping to rest the defense would evolve into virus flopping to avoid the tough opponents

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, it’s not just about living. We can’t send people out there who will be laid up in bed for 2 weeks or hospitalized. This is also the second day in a row in Dallas that someone died in their 20’s. 
 

How many tests will it take for 130 teams to be able to test players and coaches enough? A lot more than we currently have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with y'all. It' s just that we may be in about the same spot, testing-wise and treatment-wise, in March 2021 as we are in September 2020. That's why I can see them giving it a go, more or less on time. By then we'll know how things went with foreign sports and even some of our own like MLB and MLS.

Definitely hard to visualize right now when most of the country is still locked down, barely any hotels in use, flights, etc. And the aforementioned death count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

Again, it’s not just about living. We can’t send people out there who will be laid up in bed for 2 weeks or hospitalized. This is also the second day in a row in Dallas that someone died in their 20’s. 
 

How many tests will it take for 130 teams to be able to test players and coaches enough? A lot more than we currently have. 

Again, Im not saying crowds is the answer (we can definitely do this without crowds), but this thing just isnt as deadly as we thought. We cant continue to shutdown the whole world over something about 99.75% of the population will survive. I promise you a prolonged shutdown will be more deadly and harmful to to our way of life than that. The only problem here is that we live in a sue happy and over litigated country. So sometimes common sense loses. But if we just continue to social distance and take proper precautions, and the people at risk are smart about their exposures, there is no good reason to not go back to normal. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think a fall without football will be all that deadly or harmful to our way of life. I just see it hard to justify the risk when by September we’ll have who knows how many deaths from this. 100k? 150k?

I’m not saying there couldn’t be a safe way to do it but we’re basically opening up our state with very little planning so I’m not holding my breath there will be one by then. 

Edited by 4th&Five
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

Again, it’s not just about living. We can’t send people out there who will be laid up in bed for 2 weeks or hospitalized. This is also the second day in a row in Dallas that someone died in their 20’s. 
 

How many tests will it take for 130 teams to be able to test players and coaches enough? A lot more than we currently have. 

One of the 20 year olds had been critically ill already. Did the second have any health issues? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with y'all. It' s just that we may be in about the same spot, testing-wise and treatment-wise, in March 2021 as we are in September 2020. That's why I can see them giving it a go, more or less on time. By then we'll know how things went with foreign sports and even some of our own like MLB and MLS.
Definitely hard to visualize right now when most of the country is still locked down, barely any hotels in use, flights, etc. And the aforementioned death count.

I think the NFL will find a way. Too much money on the line, including everyone's livelihood, and far fewer people to get on the same page. College is a lot more comolex and I don't see it happening outside of maybe secsecsec. They really won't give a fuck over there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gmr548 said:


This is a very tired talking point.

1.) 300lb OL/DL are often not particularly healthy and are in fact higher risk. A guy like Keondre Coburn, for example, absolutely has elevated risk.

2.) The risk of death is minimal, the risk of hospitalization is not. The risk of spreading around the program and to opponents is not.

3.) Coaches, support staff, etc. Are not 20 year old athletes.

I get that you want to see football but this line of thinking is just ignoring the problem.

Right? A bunch of refs got it before the conference MBB tournaments got cancelled.  Now multiply CFB refs by 5, coaches by 5, support staff by 5, players by 6. 

Coaches are absolutely fat unhealthy slobs. Gary Patterson would probably be the first to get it too, I’d put money on that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Right? A bunch of refs got it before the conference MBB tournaments got cancelled.  Now multiply CFB refs by 5, coaches by 5, support staff by 5, players by 6. 

Coaches are absolutely fat unhealthy slobs. Gary Patterson would probably be the first to get it too, I’d put money on that 

Nervous Ted Striker GIF by filmeditor

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...