Adam Schefter gives good news about college football season
"Speaking to people in and around college football this week, there is “strong conviction” there will be college football this season. Uncertainty about when - multiple scenarios being debated - but they sound certain there still will be college football this season."
https://mobile.twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1248342571673423880?ref_…
April 10th, 2020 at 12:03 AM ^
There'll be part of a season, that's for sure.
Just not an entire season.
148 days.
April 10th, 2020 at 12:35 AM ^
Yeah, they'll probably just have the playoffs and automatically slot Bama, Clemson, osu, and LSU because, well, just because.
Bama Clemson OSU are certainties. The fourth team they figure out by cutting the head off of a chicken, playing the kazoo and wherever it dies on the board that is who gets to get destroyed by Bama in the semis.
The fourth team they tease during the last weeks of the season to keep miserable fans somewhat interested.
I'd tune in for that.
#ratings
April 10th, 2020 at 11:16 AM ^
What you mean Oklahoma and Georgia won't get a chance to lose like usual?
April 10th, 2020 at 12:06 AM ^
hard for me to think about it honestly
I know my feelings are probably in the minority here in this football blog, but I wouldn't mind spending a cool fall day in my man cave, which happens to be a separate establishment on my property..... OK. OK, I'll admit it, my man cave is just a shed... but damn.... Michigan football.
Can't imagine it though
April 10th, 2020 at 10:58 AM ^
You can still do that you know. Even if football is on.
April 10th, 2020 at 12:16 AM ^
I had to find Adam’s twitter page to see this message.
The horror
April 10th, 2020 at 10:24 AM ^
You are something else
April 10th, 2020 at 12:24 AM ^
People without degrees in the medical field with a vested and financial interest in having football convince themselves they will be able to have football, news at 11. There exists no world in which having 100k people in a stadium this fall is a responsible thing to do from a public health perspective.
You can have a football game without a full stadium. Just ask MSU.
If they can't have a full stadium, can they expect to have an academic schedule with people on campus?
Yes because that represents two different things from a public health perspective. A college campus is a relatively closed community. If there is an outbreak in Ann Arbor fast testing, contract tracing and self quarantine can be used to contain it. If there is a sick person in a stadium of 100k people that traveled from all over the country and couldn’t tell you who they interacted with suddenly you have no way of being able to contract trace and may have just unleashed a new outbreak in LA or New York with nobody knowing it for weeks. That is two completely different levels of risk. If we develop herd immunity or get a vaccine we can go back to normal. But packed stadiums for sports is just about the last thing that should come back whereas school could be one of the first in terms of risk management
have you been on a college campus?? Particularly UM where it seems as though 30% of students were Chinese and 40% were from New York/New Jersey? I think you are fooling yourself with your logic...Sorry...campus is no different from a football stadium. Notice how every campus in the US is closed? You act like you get it but you sincerely don't...dick.
you are my hero for the day! Think i'm going to print this off and frame it
April 10th, 2020 at 12:52 PM ^
@BlueWolverine
???
They should just wait to see what happens so they don't sound like dumb asses now and possibly later. Too many people with crystal balls out there. Crystal balls are only to be used for recruiting purposes.
doesn't mean they shouldn't plan for contingencies now. what the hell else do they have to do?
Play with their non-crystal balls. Just like the rest of us sporting a pair.
But it wasn't a "responsible thing to do from a public health perspective" last year either. Or ever. In fact, from a public health perspective, we should all live inside a plastic bubble with positive pressure.
At some point, we have to agree that we can't all live our lives from a public health perspective. It's difficult to point at any particular part of one's life and say "this is more important than a public health issue." But we're taking every part of everyone's life and telling them it's too dangerous.
There has to be a balance of competing priorities. Right now, there's no balance anywhere in the world. That can't last; society will fall apart if we try to live under these rules indefinitely.
Disallowing 100,000 people to watch a game in which people run up and down a field with a ball because it (potentially) substantially risks many of their lives and their loved one's lives and the medical professionals that will have to care for them isn't necessarily out of balance.
No one thinks the existing rules should or will exist even in two months let alone indefinitely. Where are you even getting that? Your whole post is full of insane hyperbolic absolutes which is ironic as you argue for balance.
But we could go 99% of the way back to normal and the last 1% of things for which the costs (likely) still outweigh the benefits are large gatherings of people sitting shoulder to shoulder solely for entertainment purposes like sports and concerts. Those are the last things that will come back.
I'm not saying we won't have spectator sports in the fall because we don't know enough about the costs (how many people have had it, what is the true risk, etc) to know if it's out of balance, but if limiting meaningless stuff like sports for a year allows us the rest of our lives back and keeps our health care system from being overwhelmed again, that's well worth it.
No one thinks the existing rules should or will exist even in two months let alone indefinitely. Where are you even getting that? Your whole post is full of insane hyperbolic absolutes which is ironic as you argue for balance.
Really? It seems pretty much everywhere I turn, someone is trying to convince me that life will never be the same again; that we can't even think about doing X, Y, or Z until a vaccine is found. On this very thread, you've got people quoting dates like Thanksgiving for "large gatherings." I'm deeply concerned that I wasn't being hyperbolic. The situation today would have seemed insanely hyperbolic to me two months ago.
But we could go 99% of the way back to normal and the last 1% of things for which the costs (likely) still outweigh the benefits are large gatherings of people sitting shoulder to shoulder solely for entertainment purposes like sports and concerts. Those are the last things that will come back.
Why? Who makes that call? Why the implicit assumption that entertainment is unimportant? Anybody who doesn't want to sit shoulder-to-shoulder with others shouldn't go.
I'm not saying we won't have spectator sports in the fall because we don't know enough about the costs (how many people have had it, what is the true risk, etc) to know if it's out of balance, but if limiting meaningless stuff like sports for a year allows us the rest of our lives back and keeps our health care system from being overwhelmed again, that's well worth it.
First it was two weeks, then a month, then a season, now a year; when does it end? What makes next year any better? Even if there's a vaccine for this disease, there will be another. If entertainment is "meaningless," then we would never have spectator sports, movie theaters, etc. Again, this is my point. There are very few individual activities that you can look at and say, "yes, that's important enough to risk death." But if you take that to its logical extreme, you're back in the plastic bubble -- it's safer for everyone if everybody stays at home.
Life has risks. I don't understand when we decided, as a society, that we should all live in fear. It's not new -- it goes back at least to 9/11, and probably further than that. We just seem to react more and more strongly to it with time.
If you look around right now, it's not hard to find people talking calmly about how we move forward. Widely available testing is a crucial piece of that, etc.
A virus doesn't care if you're living in fear or not, so showing it a brave face makes no difference. What makes a difference in this case is generally staying away from other people until we reach a level that doesn't overwhelm our hospitals and we have enough testing to isolate new cases quickly. It's as simple and as complicated as that.
corona virus don't care, corona virus don't give a fuck
April 10th, 2020 at 10:53 AM ^
The virus will spread. It's what a virus does. You can't stop it, absent a vaccine -- which may never come. We have cratered our economy, put millions of people out of work, and are busily destroying our social institutions, all to try to stop a virus that can't be stopped.
None of this is rational behavior. It's all fear-driven. If you start from the perspective of assuming that some people will die from this disease, and there's nothing anybody can do about that, suddenly it doesn't make any sense to stay locked in our own houses or shut down the sports world.
April 10th, 2020 at 11:52 AM ^
You are 100% correct. We live in a Medical Martial Law. Also know their virus models have been wrong! Latest model down to 60K death and that's into August. What's next updated model run going to show?-40K deaths by the end of the year?
Yes, "Life has risks." By the way, there is still no vaccine for HIV, now some 40 years in the making. So what if there is no vaccine? There are effective therapies ( malaria drug comes to mind, etc)
April 10th, 2020 at 11:24 AM ^
"Ask not what can your country can do for you--ask why can't we play football in front of 100,000 fans?"
I just can't imagine it
There's no reason a full stadium of fans need to be present.
Presumably it will be safe enough to re-open restaurants/schools by then. If so, it should also be true that 22 incredibly healthy young adults will be able to share a 6360 square foot field with each other.
So fans can’t be in the stands but those other 80-100 standing shoulder to shoulder on the sideline are fine. Or the 11-12 in the trenches breathing HEAVILY on each other all game.
when you reference these “young and healthy” athletes you do realize everyone has family members or their friends do or the others on campus do, etc...
Look I’m no medical expert and clearly you aren’t either, and I’m not suggesting either do or don’t, but your implied argument of size of the field and perceived good health of participants relative to number of players is tone deaf.
Ding, ding, ding!
You are 100% exactly right. Absent of a vaccine or clinically proven safe and reliable cure there is no way football is played this fall. Even though the noted medical expert Adam Schefter and "some people" think otherwise.
There is a absolutely no one with a shred of medical education or training that thinks they will. NO ONE. But there are a whole bunch of Mike Gundy types whose income depends on them playing that think they will.
Here's the problem: We have a flu vaccine but not many get a flu shot every year. We talk about having to protect the vulnerable by not spreading the corona virus but if there is a 100% effective vaccine and 5% of the fans in Michigan Stadium don't get it, that's 5,000 people who leave the stadium every home game and spread the virus back to their communities.
April 10th, 2020 at 10:05 AM ^
Who will infect them while they're at the stadium?
April 10th, 2020 at 10:16 AM ^
Hypothetically, anyone who hasn't had the vaccine (assuming it is 100% effective) would spread it to the others. Fewer than 50% of adults get a flu vaccine; similar compliance would mean 50,000 potential spreaders each game.
My hunch is that the country will ease over from government mandated isolation/distancing to more personal responsibility for keeping oneself and one's family protected. When that is and what that looks like, I have no idea.
April 10th, 2020 at 10:17 AM ^
That's not how herd immunity works. Also, 0% chance there is a vaccine available for this by the first kickoff
Do you not think they are consulting health professionals and/or government authorities and taking their expertise/advice into consideration? What I have read about the MLB, it sounds like everyone is getting involved and the proper consulting is being done. I am sure all professional leagues are doing the same.
If the MLB can start their season in June or July, which is something Korea is already starting to implement with a target date in May with their professional baseball league, I don't see why college football couldn't work out a proper plan to play this season as well with restrictions.
Watching how Korea's resumption of their professional sports will be a good barometer of how it will go here in the US. At least we have a test dummy.
What I'm hearing here in Tallahassee, where family work at FSU, is no return until we've got a vaccine.
Diverse contending forces will obviously be in play. But I think that with the most public aspects of this politicians of all stripes are going to have to honor the social contract. Everyone is pretty aware of the potential for real breakdown.
It's really quite simple... if you are at risk, stay home. If you are healthy and want to go to the game, go. There will be a lot of 50 yard line seats available with the at risk population watching from home!
In all seriousness though, at some point in the near future there is going to need to be balance. The majority of the population will have either had it or will get it and not need to go to the hospital. A large % of people that have tested positive did not experience any symptoms at all.
The people that need protection need to continue to protect themselves with isolation, the rest of us that won't overwhelm the hospitals if we get it need to start resuming our lives.
Small businesses are getting crushed, people are losing jobs and eventually will lose homes. I get the need for the at risk population to stay isolated. I get that I should call my 80 yr dad vs going to visit him. We do not need to shut the entire US down to prevent that from happening.
When did we decide that doctors are going to decide everything in our lives for us? You could have the games and let only students into the stadiums. They're young and relatively healthy, and swapping germs on campus already.
April 10th, 2020 at 12:26 AM ^
Both antibody and virus testing would have to be available and cheap. It is possible, but a lot would have to happen between now and then to get to a scenario with fans present.
Teams would likely have to test players frequently and isolate any who test positive. It would also possibly give an advantage to teams with higher % who have already had it.
April 10th, 2020 at 12:34 AM ^
Adam Schefter knows nothing.
The people "in and around college football" know nothing.
A "strong conviction" is literally saying "just a guess".
Maybe it happens. We all want sports back, but there is nothing here to count on. "multiple scenarios being debated - but they sound certain there still will be college football this season." That's as loose a prediction as you can make.
Dana White gave good news and had strong convictions and look how that went.
6.9.0
April 10th, 2020 at 12:38 AM ^
You're 6.9.0?
Is that like 5G to MGoUser "MichCali"s 4G who is only 6.8.0?
don't
cross
the streams of 6.8.0 and 6.9.0....
April 10th, 2020 at 12:53 AM ^
That quote might look like the bargaining phase when it's all said and done.
I'm hopeful football comes back but the decision makers don't know that it will be anymore than we do at this point.
State and local officials - both political and public health leaders - will be the determining factor. Yesterday a leader out near San Francisco mentioned it's tough to imagine any big games happening before Thanksgiving. If one area isn't on board I don't think we'll see it.
Plus, of course financial implications are huge, but highly, highly, highly doubt unanimous approval amongst university presidents to have their "student-athletes" playing with the risk that comes with it and optics of it all.
The only thing that's certain right now is how uncertain the next 6-12 months are. And even if this is true that football happens, it's extremely doubtful we allow 100k people fill the stands when a vaccine still isn't available yet.
At this point it would just be great to say with conviction that the country will be back to working at capacity by this fall, let alone participating in large community events.
Also - if arenas and other public centers cannot mitigate risk - the fallout from litigation and legal costs associated to allowing public gatherings in which someone subsequently died or was hospitalized have not even really started en masse for this wave - let alone moving too quickly prior to known effective treatments and vacines are in place.
What is the fallout if the first game of the year several hundered people become infected at a game and multiple die from that?