Will There Be a 2020 Football Season?

[WyoHusker56]

Between states starting to mandate masks and Trump seeming to get on board with promoting mask use as "patriotic" there is a glimmer of hope in my mind now that we have a season that is maybe just delayed and B1G only. Wasn't feeling that way a while ago, but it seem some of the worst areas are starting to trend down and more people are giving in and taking things seriously. Current mask use here in Montana (after a mandate) is probably above 75% I'd guess. Interested to see if our cases start to move down.

 

[kansas45]

It's getting worse; as I have always stated: insanity knows no limits. While you may argue that this is not insane, the point is that this whole thing is bordering on such. If not insanity, I believe we can agree on "chaos". Thus I will alter my notion of insanity to "chaos knows no limits." 

 

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/29510452/no-fans-fall-college-sports-state-new-york

Colleges and universities in New York can play football and other sports this fall, but they will have to do so without fans in the stands because of the coronavirus pandemic, according to an order from Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday. "Fanless, the game can go on, the game can be televised, but no fans," Cuomo said during a conference call with reporters, according to multiple news outlets.The order would affect FBS members Army, Buffalo and Syracuse, as well as a handful of FCS programs if their seasons are played.

But couple this with this news: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-york-new-jersey-add-10-states-to-mandatory-quarantine-restriction-list

As of Tuesday, individuals traveling from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin will be required to self-quarantine for 14 days upon arrival in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey, bringing the total to 31 states.

And we knew that there would be no fans in the stands but some schools were bragging, like Texas, of being at 50% capacity at one time. Of course, we know that colleges will be given a "pass" and allowed to travel to these states to play but this also creates a lot of unneeded friction and tension among people and that the argument of the financial "bottom line."; but what is stopping a governor from imposing higher or stricter restrictions as new data comes in? 

 

[Enhance]

Reminder ... this thread is about "Will There Be a 2020 Football Season?"

I agree with many of those who have said it is tough to answer this important question without diving into some of the overall pandemic conversation. The two topics are not mutually exclusive.

That said, I would simply request folks be mindful of the path they go down in this thread. It's been a bit spotty at times and we've had to move some things. For example, if somebody just wants to take shots at elected officials or discuss some of the more politically themed elements of the virus, there's a thread and a forum for that.

 

[kansas45]

I agree with many of those who have said it is tough to answer this important question without diving into some of the overall pandemic conversation. The two topics are not mutually exclusive.

That said, I would simply request folks be mindful of the path they go down in this thread. It's been a bit spotty at times and we've had to move some things. For example, if somebody just wants to take shots at elected officials or discuss some of the more politically themed elements of the virus, there's a thread and a forum for that.

All I try to do is post as relevant information as possible. I know you are not (hopefully) getting on to me or others and I do not want to turn this is a left-right political issue. And you are correct that there is no need to post shots at political leaders but you can, I would hope, inform people of what some of them have stated that makes a point as to answering the question of "will there be a college football season in 2020?" 

For example, if a governor of a state says: no travel, this should be given as information to help answer the question. But no need to say "governor is out of their mind and an idiot." But that the decision does add to the overall chaos and insanity of the situation. However, while I do not want to get into the elected politics of this virus, there is little doubt that some of that is playing out in this "Theatre of the Absurd" i.e. drama using the abandonment of conventional dramatic form to portray the futility of human struggle in a senseless world. And there is a lot of drama going on right now. And I will revise my "insanity and chaos know no limits" and suggest that "senselessness knows no limits." 

But I just thought of this: If you do ask the question of "will there be college football in fall 2020?" there are really three responses that do deserve a reason why because this is what will the response will be:

1. No, there will not be a college football season. Response: what? are you out of your mind? 

2. Yes, there will be a college football season. Response: what? are you out of your mind?

3. I don't know if there will be a college football season. Response: what? are you out of your mind? 

 

[kansas45]

"Will There Be a 2020 Football Season?"

Interesting article.

https://www.si.com/college/2020/07/21/college-football-return-coronavirus-contact-tracing

Some pull quotes:

At issue is that mandatory 14-day quarantine as part of the contact tracing section of the plan. Some around college football believe the quarantine time to be so long and the definition of a “high-risk” contact to be so cautious that completing a season may be virtually impossible.

According to both the Power 5 and NCAA guidelines, those who test positive for COVID-19 must isolate for at least 10 days from their onset of symptoms/positive test and until they’ve gone at least three days without symptoms. However, those found to have contact with the infected must miss even more time—two full weeks—even if they test negative for the virus.

The key word there: may. There are liability concerns. College athletes are not paid like their professional counterparts. “This could shut down a team for 14 days and then you need time to re-acclimate,” Drezner says. “If you have a normal college football practice and someone turns out to be positive, you are quarantining a large portion of the team.”

Identifying high-risk contacts takes honesty. Did you collide with Infected Player A at practice at all? Were you around Infected Player B for 20 minutes without a mask? It’s a massive undertaking. For some, the worry is that coaches and players alike will impede contact-tracing protocols to protect a star player or players from what would amount to a two-week suspension. “They are influenced by the pressure to win,” Drezner says. “It’s possible people won’t be forthcoming. It would be sad.”

Here is another article: https://www.si.com/college/2020/07/16/power-5-conferences-covid-testing-college-football

Overall conclusion: No football this fall. 

 

[Hilltop]

Kansas45, It's easy to assume no college football by looking at the daunting task ahead.  However, there is enough money on the line just from TV contracts to motivate those involved to try very hard.  I'm guessing we have at least some form of a season because money typically wins the conversation.

 

[kansas45]

Kansas45, It's easy to assume no college football by looking at the daunting task ahead.  However, there is enough money on the line just from TV contracts to motivate those involved to try very hard.  I'm guessing we have at least some form of a season because money typically wins the conversation.

And I will put you in the "yes" column. 

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

Had we started implementing this in mid-April, we would most likely have a semi-normal college football season this fall - maybe with 20-40% attendance.

I didn't see any masks for sale in mid-April, did you?  Our many box stores sold out of even basic bandanas.  Also, slowing the spread of a virus with cloth masks is an inference, not a conclusion backed by strong science. 

Is it also an acknowledgement by the NCAA that while it's inevitable some coaches will get sick, they will still allow football?  Kind of reads that way to me. 

Yes. The NCAA is laying down some pretty specific guidelines for a season that is supposedly doomed to not happen.   Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Speaking of which everyone seems to assume that the NCAA has the authority to cancel college football?  IS that in their charter?

 

[knapplc]

I didn't see any masks for sale in mid-April, did you?  Our many box stores sold out of even basic bandanas.  Also, slowing the spread of a virus with cloth masks is an inference, not a conclusion backed by strong science. 

 

[Rochelobe]

I didn't see any masks for sale in mid-April, did you?  Our many box stores sold out of even basic bandanas.  Also, slowing the spread of a virus with cloth masks is an inference, not a conclusion backed by strong science. 

Yes. The NCAA is laying down some pretty specific guidelines for a season that is supposedly doomed to not happen.   Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Speaking of which everyone seems to assume that the NCAA has the authority to cancel college football?  IS that in their charter?

I was using cloth masks in mid-April.  I started using crude folded bandannas cut from a T-shirt around 1 Apr, ~2 weeks after my state issued their stay-at-home order.  Some kind of covering was required if you wished to enter grocery stores at that time.  By ~13 Apr I was able to find and start using cloth masks with ear holders.

"Strong science"

Are you are saying there is no published research on the use of cloth masks?

http://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf

[SIZE=14.944px]Multiple studies show the filtration effects of cloth masks [/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]relative to surgical masks. Particle sizes for speech are on the [/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]order of[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px] 1[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]μ[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]m[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]([/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]20[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]) while typical definitions of droplet size are[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px] 5[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]μ[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]m[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]-[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]10[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]μ[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]m[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]([/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]5[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]). Generally available household materials had[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px] between a 49% and 86% filtration rate for[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]0[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px].[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]02[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]μ[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]m [/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]exhaled par[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]ticles whereas surgical masks filtered 89% of those particles[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]([/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]21[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]). In a laboratory setting, household materials had 3% to[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px] 60% filtration rate for particles in the relevant size range, find[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]ing them comparable to some surgical masks ([/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]22[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]). In another[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]laboratory setup, a tea cloth mask was found to filter 60% of [/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]particles between[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]0[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px].[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]02[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]μ[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]m[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]to[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]1[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]μ[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]m[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px], where surgical masks fil[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]tered 75% ([/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]23[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]). Dato et al (2006) ([/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]24[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]), note that "quality com[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]mercial masks are not always accessible." They designed and[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px] tested a mask made from heavyweight T-shirts, finding that it[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px] "offered substantial protection from the challenge aerosol and [/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]showed good fit with minimal leakage". Although cloth and [/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]surgical masks are primarily targeted towards droplet parti[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]cles, some evidence suggests they may have a partial effect in[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px] reducing viral aerosol shedding ([/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]25[/SIZE][SIZE=14.944px]).[/SIZE]

From the abstract of the same paper:

[SIZE=12.6193px]The preponderance of[/SIZE][SIZE=12.6193px] evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces the transmissibility[/SIZE][SIZE=12.6193px] per contact by reducing transmission of infected droplets in both [/SIZE][SIZE=12.6193px]laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effec[/SIZE][SIZE=12.6193px]tive at stopping spread of the virus when compliance is high.[/SIZE]

This paper was published in April 2020. At that time a mask recommendation was considered scientifically valid.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

We talked to UC San Francisco epidemiologist George Rutherford, MD, and infectious disease specialist Peter Chin-Hong, MD, about the CDC’s reversal on mask-wearing, the current science on how masks work, and what to consider when choosing a mask.

The original CDC guidance partly was based on what was thought to be low disease prevalence earlier in the pandemic, said Chin-Hong.

“So, of course, you’re preaching that the juice isn’t really worth the squeeze to have the whole population wear masks in the beginning – but that was really a reflection of not having enough testing, anyway,” he said. “We were getting a false sense of security.”

Rutherford was more blunt. The legitimate concern that the limited supply of surgical masks and N95 respirators should be saved for health care workers should not have prevented more nuanced messaging about the benefits of masking. “We should have told people to wear cloth masks right off the bat,” he said.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449

A cloth mask is intended to trap droplets that are released when the wearer talks, coughs or sneezes. Asking everyone to wear cloth masks can help reduce the spread of the virus by people who have COVID-19 but don't realize it.

Cloth face coverings are most likely to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus when they are widely used by people in public settings. And countries that required face masks, testing, isolation and social distancing early in the pandemic have successfully slowed the spread of the virus.

I doubt the Mayo Clinic is going to recommend cloth masks without having seen some metrics that support their use in reducing spread of the virus. 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

Cloth face coverings are recommended as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person wearing the cloth face covering coughs, sneezes, talks, or raises their voice. This is called source control. This recommendation is based on what we know about the role respiratory droplets play in the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, paired with emerging evidence from clinical and laboratory studies that shows cloth face coverings reduce the spray of droplets when worn over the nose and mouth. COVID-19 spreads mainly among people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet), so the use of cloth face coverings is particularly important in settings where people are close to each other or where social distancing is difficult to maintain.

https://www.kpax.com/news/how-cloth-face-mask-reduce-covid-spread

“Nothing is foolproof, but what we’re doing is putting another prevention measure in to decrease the spread of this disease,” said State Medical Officer Dr. Greg Holzman.

Yeah, there is no scientific evidence at all.

Are cloth masks in and of themselves a complete solution?

NO

Is anyone saying they are a complete solution?

NO

Who is (generally) saying that they should not be used?

(In my opinion) Those using political, rather than medical agendas as their driving point.

Once again - the idea is to slow the spread as much as possible in order to buy time for proactive quarantining rather than bulk quarantining of everyone.

Europe has used cloth masks in conjunction with social distancing and heavy testing as they have decreased their rate of active positive cases.   They still have hot spots flaring up, so we must continue to work for a vaccine.  Masks are meant to help us buy time.

Most of the rest of the world resumed sports sooner than the US, and has been able to start allowing attendance at some of those sporting events (AFL).  The US may try that in September with college football, but, based upon current infection rates, it will probably hasten the shutdown of the season unless things seriously improve, such as an order of magnitude or more reduction in daily positives.

Bottom Line:

In my opinion, the United States missed the opportunity to sufficiently contain the initial wave of the virus during the months of April/May/June, which would have lowered the daily new positive rate low enough that a feasible college football season could have occurred in the Sep-Dec time frame.  At this point, evidence would indicate that we will not sufficiently lower counts anytime in the near future, unless we become more diligent about mask use.  So, if a season does occur under the current situation it will probably be greatly disrupted by outbreaks, with many teams playing (at most) 3 or 4 games this fall.

 

[kansas45]

Yes. The NCAA is laying down some pretty specific guidelines for a season that is supposedly doomed to not happen.   Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The doomsday scenario is built in the guidelines by which they can point to one and then shut the whole thing down. I doubt the NCAA will cancel the season; but the overwhelming pressure of an outraged media in the event of a tragic situation to a student-athlete will doom the season. I predict it will be one of those sobering moments that will cause the season to end.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

"Strong science"

Are you are saying there is no published research on the use of cloth masks?

No I word it carefully 

Also, slowing the spread of a virus with cloth masks is an inference, not a conclusion backed by strong science. 

Testing the efficacy of a mask in a controlled laboratory setting is many degrees removed from proving their effect on public health.   I wore my old dust mask in public places once it started and eventually got some cloth ones.  But I don't kid myself that I'm stopping corona. 

The doomsday scenario is built in the guidelines by which they can point to one and then shut the whole thing down. I doubt the NCAA will cancel the season; but the overwhelming pressure of an outraged media in the event of a tragic situation to a student-athlete will doom the season. I predict it will be one of those sobering moments that will cause the season to end.

That would be so typical of governing bodies.  If one team gets a corona outbreak; don't cancel an individual game, don't pause their season until they all test negative, no, all of college football must immediately cease because there was an imperfection.

That great omaha.com story someone linked about the 1918 ND@NU game was very illustrative.  Facing a much more dangerous virus, our grandparents held the season and did cancellations and postponements where it was needed.  And they did it without team jets and Spanish Flu test kits. 

 

[Rochelobe]

No I word it carefully 

Testing the efficacy of a mask in a controlled laboratory setting is many degrees removed from proving their effect on public health.   I wore my old dust mask in public places once it started and eventually got some cloth ones.  But I don't kid myself that I'm stopping corona. 

That would be so typical of governing bodies.  If one team gets a corona outbreak; don't cancel an individual game, don't pause their season until they all test negative, no, all of college football must immediately cease because there was an imperfection.

That great omaha.com story someone linked about the 1918 ND@NU game was very illustrative.  Facing a much more dangerous virus, our grandparents held the season and did cancellations and postponements where it was needed.  And they did it without team jets and Spanish Flu test kits. 

I agree that masks do not stop the spread.  That is not the purpose.  Slowing the spread != Stopping the spread.

I guess what I don't understand is the massive resistance as if somehow masks make all live unlivable.

As far as 1918 - approximately ~675K Americans died during that pandemic, out of a population of ~106M.  Since we are at around 3 times that number of Americans today, following the same approaches used during the 1918 pandemic would result in a around ~2M American deaths due to coronavirus, assuming the death rate is the same.  Estimates I've seen for the Spanish flu mortality rate have been as high as 2.5%.  At this time we have a mortality rate of 6% for coronavirus worldwide. 

I realize we may be missing a bunch of asymptomatic cases, meaning coronavirus isn't that deadly, but, since we only have the current data, we don't yet have any "strong science" to support a lower death rate, so I guess we have to go with what the current numbers are for a mortality rate based upon current deaths and positive cases.  A lower number is only inferred, correct?

Also in 1918 vs 2020 is that schools had nothing remotely close to the liability attached to them in 1918 if athletes got sick/died as we would have in 2020.  Lawyers have fundamentally changed how institutions will have to deal with this, even outside of the medical information.  There can be positive and negative benefits due to this increased scrutiny, but in this case it probably leads to an increasing chance of the season being cancelled.  I doubt the same types of legal protections were in place for players in 1918.

For good or for bad that is probably the dominant reason the season will be cancelled.  The virus could be raging, but if there was any way the schools knew they would be legally protected, I think we'd be having a very different discussion - more about how teams would cope with missing players, but the expectation would be the season would proceed.

 

[hunter49]

I was using cloth masks in mid-April.  I started using crude folded bandannas cut from a T-shirt around 1 Apr, ~2 weeks after my state issued their stay-at-home order.  Some kind of covering was required if you wished to enter grocery stores at that time.  By ~13 Apr I was able to find and start using cloth masks with ear holders.

"Strong science"

Are you are saying there is no published research on the use of cloth masks?

http://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf

From the abstract of the same paper:

This paper was published in April 2020. At that time a mask recommendation was considered scientifically valid.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449

I doubt the Mayo Clinic is going to recommend cloth masks without having seen some metrics that support their use in reducing spread of the virus. 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

https://www.kpax.com/news/how-cloth-face-mask-reduce-covid-spread

Yeah, there is no scientific evidence at all.

Are cloth masks in and of themselves a complete solution?

NO

Is anyone saying they are a complete solution?

NO

Who is (generally) saying that they should not be used?

(In my opinion) Those using political, rather than medical agendas as their driving point.

Once again - the idea is to slow the spread as much as possible in order to buy time for proactive quarantining rather than bulk quarantining of everyone.

Europe has used cloth masks in conjunction with social distancing and heavy testing as they have decreased their rate of active positive cases.   They still have hot spots flaring up, so we must continue to work for a vaccine.  Masks are meant to help us buy time.

Most of the rest of the world resumed sports sooner than the US, and has been able to start allowing attendance at some of those sporting events (AFL).  The US may try that in September with college football, but, based upon current infection rates, it will probably hasten the shutdown of the season unless things seriously improve, such as an order of magnitude or more reduction in daily positives.

Bottom Line:

In my opinion, the United States missed the opportunity to sufficiently contain the initial wave of the virus during the months of April/May/June, which would have lowered the daily new positive rate low enough that a feasible college football season could have occurred in the Sep-Dec time frame.  At this point, evidence would indicate that we will not sufficiently lower counts anytime in the near future, unless we become more diligent about mask use.  So, if a season does occur under the current situation it will probably be greatly disrupted by outbreaks, with many teams playing (at most) 3 or 4 games this fall.

the s#!t masks people are wearing now are worthless,  the original N95, fitted properly provides some protection.

 

[kansas45]

Also in 1918 vs 2020 is that schools had nothing remotely close to the liability attached to them in 1918 if athletes got sick/died as we would have in 2020.  Lawyers have fundamentally changed how institutions will have to deal with this, even outside of the medical information. 

My argument exactly. One cannot say "we played Notre Dame in 1918, heck, even went 2-3-1 in the MVIAA; surely we can play now." Imagine the lawyers on the side of the plaintiff in this case and the number of medical expert witnesses that they could have in saying "it was illogical to play given the information we had available." The Ivy League set precedence here.