SugarShane

May 7th, 2020 at 7:00 PM ^

Do You realize planning for conference championship games happens with as little as 6 days notice in the pac 12?

 

bowl games can be as little as 3 weeks notice 

 

that’s a pretty lame excuse sorry

ak47

May 7th, 2020 at 7:03 PM ^

You do realize those games know they will have crowds for an entire year beforehand right? Who shows up to the game has nothing to do with planning for a crowd of 60k people. It’s knowing if there will be a crowd that matters and that involves months of planing. You have to deal with permits, hiring, etc

SugarShane

May 7th, 2020 at 7:08 PM ^

It doesn’t take 3 months to get those permits. 
 

teams reschedule for hurricanes, other reasons all the time with weeks notice. 
 

remember when Nebraska played Bethune cookman after the Akron game was cancelled? 
 

don’t over complicate an issue to support your narrative. The rest of college football is dealing with the same uncertainty and has not felt the need to make a decision now

Ezeh-E

May 7th, 2020 at 8:29 PM ^

I'd split the difference between your argument and the counter. Yes--rescheduling one game can be done, but if a whole bunch of teams are all rescheduling, it really does create a massive cluster.

However, I'd imagine this is much more about budgets and worst-case scenario planning than about. Now the OU program can begin to decide what to do for staffing/budget and work with somewhat more "real" numbers.

jmblue

May 7th, 2020 at 7:58 PM ^

But this isn't a one-off event.  If Oregon is going to have crowds at home games, it will sell season tickets, and if it's anything like it is at Michigan, it's pretty complicated stuff that involves seat priority points and whatnot.  Fans need time to make that decision because otherwise they lose priority for future seasons.  UO needs to know in advance what the seating situation will be.  A lot of their athletic budget is probably based on football ticket sales.  

Likewise, U-M can't wait until August to know if there will be crowds at Michigan Stadium.  

LewisBullox

May 7th, 2020 at 8:56 PM ^

But what if that decision is that we don't know?

I'd suggest the best way forward is to assume things take place as normally as possible until we're certain that scenario isn't going to fly. Then you move onto Scenario B (maybe no fans).

It's easier to cancel something than it is to un-cancel something.

jmblue

May 7th, 2020 at 9:15 PM ^

I'd suggest the best way forward is to assume things take place as normally as possible until we're certain that scenario isn't going to fly.

But then you may find yourself scrambling to create a new athletic budget on short notice (and possibly cut/suspend some sports teams) and refunding a lot of money to fans.

Large spectator events are going to be the last thing to come back.  We're highly unlikely to get the kind of medical breakthrough that would allow us to feel secure seating 50-100,000 people in one venue in time for September.  

What might be feasible, though, is playing before fans in the spring of 2021.  

LewisBullox

May 7th, 2020 at 9:28 PM ^

I understand your point, but forgoing revenue based off guessing wrong is the worst case scenario in my opinion. From the AD's perspective, it's by far your best scenario to have fans and hard to write off. It's not an easy call.

jmblue

May 7th, 2020 at 9:38 PM ^

If it were a 50-50 proposition, yes, that would make sense.  But I'm afraid you're seriously overestimating the probability of having fans in the stands this fall.  I'll be very, very surprised if that happens.   To me the big question is whether they play (in empty stadiums) at all.

If you want fans in the stands, I think you've got to postpone the season to the spring.  Schedule it for March/April/May and maybe it's doable.

LewisBullox

May 7th, 2020 at 9:49 PM ^

Yeah, I guess we fundamentally have different thoughts on how it could play out. I am still encouraged by how it has played out internationally and since the initial outbreak US. Things change quickly. I don't actually think fans are terribly likely, maybe regionally (SEC), but regardless I would I still plan for it until it is crystal clear.

ijohnb

May 8th, 2020 at 8:42 AM ^

I think it is trending toward a more regional, state by state call.  Oregon and Michigan may not have football, but Georgia, Tennessee and Florida may be playing ball.  These are largely not public health decisions being made, they are political ones.

mackbru

May 7th, 2020 at 10:58 PM ^

Yeah, according to most medical experts, there's virtually no chance that the harder hit states will allow mass crowds by September. So Oregon is just playing the odds. Also -- and this is important -- it's just fucking football. Only football zealots think it's that important for a school like Oregon to play football games this year. It's small beans comparatively. The school will be fine. Stop seeing it through the eyes of a fan and start seeing it through the eyes of a public-health official. Jeez.

shoes

May 8th, 2020 at 7:59 AM ^

Spring meaning which months? When would that season end and 2021 begin? I don't think you can have a full or near full Spring season followed 3 months later by another full season.

I think we play this  fall, with maybe the non-conference schedule cancelled. Masks probably required.

bronxblue

May 7th, 2020 at 8:54 PM ^

It's a pretty safe bet that there won't be a vaccine or even a widely-available treatment by then, and so I can see why a governor would preemptively set expectations that putting 90k+ people in close proximity to watch football is unlikely.  If by some miracle that changes then I'm sure this decision will be re-evaluated.

snarling wolverine

May 7th, 2020 at 8:51 PM ^

Probably the same reason why lockdowns start out as a 3-week thing and end up a few months.  Easier to sell to the public that way. 

Read between the lines here.  There won't be any fans in Autzen this fall.  Whether any football players take the field remains to be seen.

Western_

May 7th, 2020 at 7:07 PM ^

Social distancing is the worst thing you can do.  You need other people for a strong immune system.  Wave 2 is coming because of these policies.

MGoStretch

May 7th, 2020 at 7:38 PM ^

Do you think that the more you post this nonsense, the more likely you are to be right? Just. Stop.

Or better yet, back up your claim with some science. Short of that, stop being such a snowflake and pretending your opinion matters one single iota when it comes to the current pandemic.

Gulogulo37

May 7th, 2020 at 7:39 PM ^

Gotta love the people who WANT wave 1 because they're worried about wave 2.

Someone will probably mention how 2nd waves were often worse in 1918. Except it's not 1918, and lots of countries already avoided wave 1 in the first place and are well prepared to avoid wave 2 as well.

mackbru

May 7th, 2020 at 11:39 PM ^

You literally have no idea what you're talking about. No leading medical experts agree with this -- quite the opposite, in fact. If we'd gone with your approach, cities would have been overwhelmed a month ago and the system would already be broken. Put your hand in the sand and keep it there. Your ignorance won't harm anyone that way.

Michfan777

May 7th, 2020 at 7:14 PM ^

Considering how reactive all other people are once one Governor/state does something, I expect to see more of this across the country in rather short order.

Barring a medical breakthrough in the coming month or two, I have a feeling fans wont be at any sporting events if they are held at all...well, except for the south, where foosball>everything.