Changes to the game you'd support for a Covid present season
We know the B1G has spoken and that the fall season has been canceled. I was wondering though, having not been a football player myself, if there are changes to the game that players could support (and fans by unimportant proxy) that might make play a possibility.
To be clear, the safest course of action is likely to not play. I'm not advocating that we move forward headlessly. This is for conversation only.
A few ideas...
1. Playing football with a mask on - I know, football is hard enough without adding a layer of fabric over your mouth to breathe, but I'm just throwing out ideas here.
2. A longer clock between plays to account for fatigue from #1
3. A requirement to disallow early play clock snaps (i.e. no hurry-up offense) - basically, you can't snap the ball unless there's 10 seconds or less on the play clock.
4. A whole host of requirements for players to test/social distance outside of gameplay.
Thoughts? Am I just an asshole? (probably)
Let me know what you think.
August 17th, 2020 at 9:34 AM ^
Everyone wears these. Case solved, game on.
August 17th, 2020 at 9:39 AM ^
I played in college. I don't think there's much that would move the needle for me, if I were a current player
Most of the precautions that would be worth anything would be onerous. I'm not wearing a damn mask to play
I've seen the parties and the congregations of people on campuses. I wouldn't even want to be on a college campus right now. I'd trust myself but not my teammates
Football (or much of any group activity) right now just wouldn't be very fun
August 17th, 2020 at 9:45 AM ^
Each player would probably also have to bring their own water bottle and for them to only drink from it.
August 17th, 2020 at 12:24 PM ^
same for towels
August 17th, 2020 at 1:26 PM ^
If anyone else posted this I would agree and not be laughing. But coming from you I find this comment hilarious for some reason.
August 17th, 2020 at 9:46 AM ^
Play a winter season in domes, if possible. 10 games for 14 teams in the B1G would see each location get 2-3 games per weekend. Domes in Detroit, Indianapolis, and Minnesota or St. Louis make the most sense with one location getting a night game per week. Starting around thanksgiving puts the playoff right before March madness. Starting around the Christmas holiday puts the basketball and football championships right next to each other.
If no college football then it’s a perfect opportunity for the NFL to expand the combine into a spring exhibition league. Put together a handful of teams of seniors just like the north-south game or senior bowl but with XFL players too
August 17th, 2020 at 1:17 PM ^
Right, not a bad setup...but then, Pay the damn players and cover their insurance policies based on current draft predictions.
Stop pretending they are student athletes and the long term liability for universities can be mitigated.
August 17th, 2020 at 10:03 AM ^
How about only allowing players that test positive for COVID? Can't do any more harm if everyone has it.
*taps forehead*
August 17th, 2020 at 11:06 AM ^
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/s0814-updated-isolation-guidance.html
Still no proof of immunity for those that have recovered.
August 17th, 2020 at 12:34 PM ^
If that's true this is all a waste of time and the wait for the vaccine is going to be looooong.
August 17th, 2020 at 11:40 AM ^
User name checks out.
August 17th, 2020 at 10:07 AM ^
Does anyone know what happened with the clear face shield they were developing to be fitted into the face mask/helmet? I imagine you could have a plastic shield nestled similarly to visors players wear and maybe a breathable/stretch tech fabric that connects from the bottom of the face mask to the collar of the jersey. Breathable/open from the sides of the helmet.
No sidelines? Maybe subs are in the locker room or distanced on the stands and there is more time allowed for players to sub in and out. Coaches could all be in the booth.
Have players bubble together for the duration of the season (8-10 weeks?).
August 17th, 2020 at 10:13 AM ^
5. Ban heavy breathing.
6. Water the field with Purell.
7. Wear your helmet backwards.
8. Play under the same rules but no touching.
August 17th, 2020 at 10:16 AM ^
9. Instead of actually playing, everyone *pretends* they're playing.
August 17th, 2020 at 12:37 PM ^
That's what we've been doing against OSU since 2012
August 17th, 2020 at 10:19 AM ^
Outside of extreme precautions, testing, and social distancing off the field plus all players, staff, and refs wearing masks when on the sideline, I don't see how many on field changes could realistically happen
August 17th, 2020 at 10:47 AM ^
Again, starting with the false assumption that playing football is inherently more dangerous. What are these kids going to be doing with the additional 40 hrs a week that they would normally spend with football. Are they going to be self-quaranting in their dorm alone? Why do people assume they will be safer?
August 17th, 2020 at 11:03 AM ^
Tony Hawk Pro Skater 1 and 2 reboots drop in early September. Also, FIFA, and Madden. Call of Duty. Oh, and classes.
August 17th, 2020 at 11:21 AM ^
You are missing the point so badly. Of course schools can’t control everything students do. But their job is to protect them the best they can by mitigating risks, while still fulfilling the university’s mission. Which is, ya know, to educate people.
What you’re saying doesn’t make any sense. What if the government said, we’re not going to close bars, create masks mandates, etc because people are going to get exposed anyway? See how misguided that sounds? Sure, players may engage in risky behavior, but many won’t. Some will go home and take online classes. Either way it’s irrelevant to the decision to cancel football.
Football is a) completely unnecessary and b) involves situations where social distancing is impossible on a daily basis. Plus if COVID is in fact causing increased rates of myocarditis, playing increases the risk of sudden cardiac death as well.
It’s really not that hard to understand why they cancelled is it?
August 17th, 2020 at 12:20 PM ^
Oh boy. This argument. Guess what? Life is unnecessary. Might as well just kill everyone off and then we'd all be permanently safe. Sorry. But you alone don't get to decide what is and isnt necessary. Exercise may actually boost immune system response. You dont know that football leads to any increased chance of the spead of transmission as compared to substitute activities. There's no data on this. You're pushing a narrative without data just because it "feels right"
August 17th, 2020 at 2:13 PM ^
“Life is unnecessary”
What kind of clown show comment is that? You want to talk about “pushing a narrative”? I don’t even know how to respond to such ignorance honestly.
If you don’t understand how collegiate athletics is unnecessary/non-essential during a pandemic, then I don’t know what to tell you.
And guess what? I’m not the one deciding anything. The university presidents made the decision based on information they received from experts in the field.
Time to grow up and deal wit the reality of our current situation buddy.
August 17th, 2020 at 2:35 PM ^
Thanks.
'Necessary" as you are framing it is such a subjective concept. It has no place within a scientific discussion. You just point me towards the data which shows outdoor sports participant are facilitating an increased risk of transmission. I'll wait...
August 17th, 2020 at 2:47 PM ^
Well considering that it's universally recommended to maintain 6 feet of distance from others, even when outside, I don't understand how you think that football won't lead to increased spread.
Setting that aside for a moment, you do realize that organized football requires more than just the 60 minutes on the field right? There are locker rooms, weight rooms, team meetings, travel to other cities for games, stays in hotels, etc etc etc. Are you going to ask me to PROVE all those things cause spread as well or can we agree that it's a well established fact?
Are you being intentionally obtuse just to prove your point? I really don't understand.
August 17th, 2020 at 3:25 PM ^
Yes, it's your assertation. The burden of proof is on you. Still waiting...
August 17th, 2020 at 4:22 PM ^
You're being ridiculous and you know it. Everything I stated in my previous post is proven fact. I don't have to provide you with infinite citations showing that large groups in close proximity leads to increased spread. You're the one saying the B1G made the wrong decision. PROVE IT.
It's hard to argue with someone living in fantasy land, so I will bid you adieu.
Have a great day. Peace!
August 17th, 2020 at 4:36 PM ^
You havent even provided a single citation . Yet you state it's an established fact. You should easily be able to point me to reference literature showing outdoor sporting activities increase the rate of airborne viral infection spread when compared to substitute activities. This is the assumption everyone else is making. I'll I'm asking for is the data...
August 17th, 2020 at 11:42 AM ^
Apparently they're spending 20 of those hours practicing anyway.
August 17th, 2020 at 12:24 PM ^
Why do people assume they will be safer?
Well I assume that they're not going to be exhaling and inhaling at a high rate immediately across from and next to people doing the same thing, for starters. Or tackling them, or in giant dogpiles of people.
Risk is additive. It's a ridiculous argument to say that football isn't more risk.
If you're saying that outside football activities are just as risky as football, so you might as well play - , you're basically saying "hey they are going to be doing risky stuff that might lead to infections" . And then turning around and saying they should play football on top of that
It's just a lazy and poor argument
August 17th, 2020 at 1:19 PM ^
I'm not making an argument. You are. I'm asking for data which shows football as an increased risk of transmission of the virus as compared to non-football activities. This is the assumption that everyone is operating under but they arent able to provide any evidence of it. And yes, a lot of nfl hopefully players will still be practicing football with each other, even if it's not sanctioned by the schools. Or they will transfer/move somewhere where it is allowed. You're incredibly naive to think these kids will magically be safer by cancelling games this fall.
August 17th, 2020 at 2:07 PM ^
Exhibit 1. Football Players in Their Natural Habitat (ink on paper, 2001, artist unknown).
.jpg)
August 17th, 2020 at 4:41 PM ^
No, you're not addressing the issue. Risk is not additive, its relative. The week isnt 30 hours shorter because kids are no longer playing football. Are football players spreading the virus more when they spend time playing outdoors? Or when they spend those 30 hours, in a dorm? In a classroom? At a restaurant? You think you know better but you dont. No one does
August 17th, 2020 at 10:59 AM ^
You give all of the players one of these, and I vote to play the season. Otherwise, I'm out.
August 17th, 2020 at 11:12 AM ^
It is just not going to work for College Athletics. Bubbles have shown to be really effective at preventing spread and having games without disruptions. Sports without bubbles (at least in the US) have not been as effective.
You can't force student-athletes into a bubble, so it is just not going to work.
August 17th, 2020 at 12:53 PM ^
Who’s Barry Badrinath?
Who’s Barry Badrinath?
Who’s Barry Badrinath?
August 17th, 2020 at 11:37 AM ^
More Joe Namath
.gif)
August 17th, 2020 at 12:00 PM ^
1. Replace B1G Presidents and ADs with people who can make intelligent decisions and rationally weigh risks and rewards like all good decision makers are supposed to do.
August 17th, 2020 at 2:16 PM ^
You mean replace them with people who think like you, ignore the reality of our current situation, and play footbaw at all costs because you want to have something to do on Saturdays?
Thanks, but I’ll pass on that.