Bowlsby comments on 2020 football season

[Cydkar]

On another note, I don't think we can count on the Ames Power and Light District any time soon.

I never was.

 

[agrabes]

The biggest thing that could cause extinction is a player, players, coach, or coaches becoming infected due to playing or practicing and death or deaths ensuing. That’s not a black eye that is the guy in Indiana Jones ripping that dudes heart out of chest.

Why do you believe that a death from a virus during football activities would shut down football, when death and serious injury directly caused by coaches decisions has not even resulting in serious consequences for the single program involved?

https://www.espn.com/college-football/news/story?id=6219373

I think an important factor in an executive's thinking is risk assessment. There are plenty of people who have zero tolerance for risk, including executives but I would argue that an executive who is obsessed with eliminating all risk is not a good executive.

An "executive level thinker" about college football is trying to find a way to return the sport this fall in a safe way. It's not executive level thinking to give up without trying and run scared from a challenge. You have to think first of the safety - can you find a way to return to playing with an acceptable risk level for players and staff (i.e. is the risk to playing the sport greater than the risk to a person in living out their daily life otherwise?)? Second, you have to think cost/benefit. Does it cost more to implement those measures than we can afford? If the answer is no to one of those questions, you can't play. If it's yes to both, then you play.

There will be a lot of time and data for the ADs and NCAA to figure this out as the general economy starts back up in May/June. We will learn in early summer what measures work and how we can let some people gather in moderate sized groups safely. There's probably zero chance of things being like a normal season, but it doesn't have to be the same as last season to be a season.

The world will survive without sports if it has to, but returning sports is valuable to society and it's worth the time and money to find a safe way to do it.

 

[CycloneErik]

Why do you believe that a death from a virus during football activities would shut down football, when death and serious injury directly caused by coaches decisions has not even resulting in serious consequences for the single program involved?

https://www.espn.com/college-football/news/story?id=6219373

I think an important factor in an executive's thinking is risk assessment. There are plenty of people who have zero tolerance for risk, including executives but I would argue that an executive who is obsessed with eliminating all risk is not a good executive.

An "executive level thinker" about college football is trying to find a way to return the sport this fall in a safe way. It's not executive level thinking to give up without trying and run scared from a challenge. You have to think first of the safety - can you find a way to return to playing with an acceptable risk level for players and staff (i.e. is the risk to playing the sport greater than the risk to a person in living out their daily life otherwise?)? Second, you have to think cost/benefit. Does it cost more to implement those measures than we can afford? If the answer is no to one of those questions, you can't play. If it's yes to both, then you play.

There will be a lot of time and data for the ADs and NCAA to figure this out as the general economy starts back up in May/June. We will learn in early summer what measures work and how we can let some people gather in moderate sized groups safely. There's probably zero chance of things being like a normal season, but it doesn't have to be the same as last season to be a season.

The world will survive without sports if it has to, but returning sports is valuable to society and it's worth the time and money to find a safe way to do it.

Maybe the contagious aspect of a virus needs to be considered differently than deaths that don't spread.

 

[Clonehomer]

Makes sense, if it's not safe for fans, we shouldn't be making players take unnecessary risks. Taking a year off and having a reset of sorts on football budgets may very well be what is coming.

All those big stadiums built using loans and bonds still need to be paid for. There are a lot of inelastic expenses in athletic departments that can't just go away.

 

[CyJack13]

All those big stadiums built using loans and bonds still need to be paid for. There are a lot of inelastic expenses in athletic departments that can't just go away.

And if they aren't paid on time? What are they gonna do, foreclose on the stadium and sell it off?

 

[Cyclonepride]

The biggest thing that could cause extinction is a player, players, coach, or coaches becoming infected due to playing or practicing and death or deaths ensuing. That’s not a black eye that is the guy in Indiana Jones ripping that dudes heart out of chest.

I'd venture to guess that the odds of an extremely fit young player dying from this are a ways down the list behind many, many other causes. Like in the hundredths of a percent.

 

[madguy30]

[QUOTE="agrabes, post: 7107467, member: 3233"

There will be a lot of time and data for the ADs and NCAA to figure this out as the general economy starts back up in May/June. We will learn in early summer what measures work and how we can let some people gather in moderate sized groups safely. There's probably zero chance of things being like a normal season, but it doesn't have to be the same as last season to be a season.
.[/QUOTE]

Assuming this is going to happen.

I hope it does, but I can't expect it to. We've never really gotten to a 'nobody went anywhere for 3 weeks' phase and things are looking to start getting lifted like it's fading away.

 

[Gunnerclone]

Maybe the contagious aspect of a virus needs to be considered differently than deaths that don't spread.

MAYBE. But then again car crashes.

 

[CycloneErik]

MAYBE. But then again car crashes.

And flu gun fatalities

 

[Gunnerclone]

And flu gun fatalities

I just can’t figure out what world people live in that they don’t understand that social distancing is the only proven defense we have against this virus. But hey let’s get a bunch of people together and let’s ESPECIALLY get a bunch of great young people together in ultra close proximity swearing and hacking and bleeding all over each other because Sportsball! And we need entertainment! And paydays!

 

[knowlesjam]

All those big stadiums built using loans and bonds still need to be paid for. There are a lot of inelastic expenses in athletic departments that can't just go away.

It will impact all...take Rutgers...$239M in Athletic Revenue Bonds...and the university had to kick in $14.5M in 2019 from the general fund to cover athletics. Obviously, Iowa State has Athletic Revenue Bonds, most recently $59.5M to cover the new construction around the stadium...but $0 from the university fund.

 

[simply1]

I'd venture to guess that the odds of an extremely fit young player dying from this are a ways down the list behind many, many other causes. Like in the hundredths of a percent.

Oh well then, fire off that email.

 

[madguy30]

I just can’t figure out what world people live in that they don’t understand that social distancing is the only proven defense we have against this virus. But hey let’s get a bunch of people together and let’s ESPECIALLY get a bunch of great young people together in ultra close proximity swearing and hacking and bleeding all over each other because Sportsball! And we need entertainment! And paydays!

I can't live if I can't go drink and weaken my immune system in a parking lot while breathing on a bunch of people and vice versa, then going to work the next week to brag about it.

 

[WhoISthis]

I'd venture to guess that the odds of an extremely fit young player dying from this are a ways down the list behind many, many other causes. Like in the hundredths of a percent.

If we’re capable of ignoring the risks of CTE, yeah, society can ignore a virus risk.

The risks should be small enough by then that the actuarial minded sign off in it. It’s nearly certain if there are students on campus there’s football, and likely even if not. Fans in the stands? Now that’s less likely.

Although I’d be curious if fans/players could even sue the State after the WI election went down.

 

[agrabes]

Maybe the contagious aspect of a virus needs to be considered differently than deaths that don't spread.

It certainly does. That doesn't mean that it can't be considered at all as Gunnerclone seems to suggest. It doesn't mean there are no possible means of mitigating its risk. I don't really understand your point here - the type of risk is different for a virus vs. sending a student up on a lift in 60 mph wind. If the risk of players dying from the virus is anywhere near the risk of a student going up on a lift in high winds after whatever mitigation measures can be employed by August, then we'd better not be playing football. I was pretty clear about that in my first post. First priority is safety.

[QUOTE="agrabes, post: 7107467, member: 3233"

There will be a lot of time and data for the ADs and NCAA to figure this out as the general economy starts back up in May/June. We will learn in early summer what measures work and how we can let some people gather in moderate sized groups safely. There's probably zero chance of things being like a normal season, but it doesn't have to be the same as last season to be a season.
.

Assuming this is going to happen.

I hope it does, but I can't expect it to. We've never really gotten to a 'nobody went anywhere for 3 weeks' phase and things are looking to start getting lifted like it's fading away.

Keep in mind that while people are talking about possibly lifting things, they are not talking about lifting them tomorrow. They are now talking seriously about establishing criteria for how and when they can be lifted. Most people expect that it will not start to be lifted until late May. That is nearly two months away.

 

[CycloneErik]

It certainly does. That doesn't mean that it can't be considered at all as Gunnerclone seems to suggest. It doesn't mean there are no possible means of mitigating its risk. I don't really understand your point here - the type of risk is different for a virus vs. sending a student up on a lift in 60 mph wind. If the risk of players dying from the virus is anywhere near the risk of a student going up on a lift in high winds after whatever mitigation measures can be employed by August, then we'd better not be playing football. I was pretty clear about that in my first post. First priority is safety.



Keep in mind that while people are talking about possibly lifting things, they are not talking about lifting them tomorrow. They are now talking seriously about establishing criteria for how and when they can be lifted. Most people expect that it will not start to be lifted until late May. That is nearly two months away.

Viruses are contagious. Head injuries, spinal injuries, heart attacks, heatstroke and whatever else are not.
It wasn't a complicated point.

 

[agrabes]

Viruses are contagious. Head injuries, spinal injuries, heart attacks, heatstroke and whatever else are not.
It wasn't a complicated point.

That's fine, but it's also not particularly a relevant point either, which is why I asked you to clarify. It doesn't really challenge or address my main point - that college football programs have caused the death of players and staff through negligence in the past without serious negative effects. Why should it be so drastically different if that negligent death is caused by an infectious disease? To go from a $70k fine to the entire NCAA football organization being banned is a very large step. The only reason I could see is if college football causes an outbreak that spreads to the general public, which is extremely unlikely if any kind of mitigation measures are in place.

If you want to challenge that playing football in any form is too risky and that it could lead to major outbreaks, that's fine. But make that claim then.

I just can’t figure out what world people live in that they don’t understand that social distancing is the only proven defense we have against this virus. But hey let’s get a bunch of people together and let’s ESPECIALLY get a bunch of great young people together in ultra close proximity swearing and hacking and bleeding all over each other because Sportsball! And we need entertainment! And paydays!

I'm trying to understand what scenario of college football you're imagining here. Are you assuming that it's either the exact same as the 2019 season or completely cancelled? If so, that definitely explains it...

Here are the measures I imagine will be in place if a 2020 season happens:

1) Players and staff kept isolated in university housing. Not allowed to leave team facilities during the season, starting with fall camp.
2) Players and staff tested using rapid results test kits prior to entering the weight room for team workouts and coming to practice. Not allowed to enter until a negative result is confirmed.
3) Fans not allowed in the stadium or to tailgate. Streets will be blocked off to prevent tailgating.
4) Fans encouraged to "tailgate" at home in small groups of 10-20.
5) All players, staff, and reporters, etc tested with rapid results test kits prior to entering the stadium on game day. Not allowed to enter any facilities prior to a confirmed negative result.

I think that measures like this will be valuable - they show people that we can get back to business as long as we take additional safety precautions.

 

[cycloneworld]

The Notre Dame AD said playing without fans is a no go for him.

This will get heated before long.

That tune will change quickly if the alternative is $75 million less in revenue for them in 2020. They'll play on a Tuesday morning at 7am without fans before they'll cancel the season.

 

[CycloneErik]

That's fine, but it's also not particularly a relevant point either, which is why I asked you to clarify. It doesn't really challenge or address my main point - that college football programs have caused the death of players and staff through negligence in the past without serious negative effects. Why should it be so drastically different if that negligent death is caused by an infectious disease? To go from a $70k fine to the entire NCAA football organization being banned is a very large step. The only reason I could see is if college football causes an outbreak that spreads to the general public, which is extremely unlikely if any kind of mitigation measures are in place.

If you want to challenge that playing football in any form is too risky and that it could lead to major outbreaks, that's fine. But make that claim then.



I'm trying to understand what scenario of college football you're imagining here. Are you assuming that it's either the exact same as the 2019 season or completely cancelled? If so, that definitely explains it...

Here are the measures I imagine will be in place if a 2020 season happens:

1) Players and staff kept isolated in university housing. Not allowed to leave team facilities during the season, starting with fall camp.
2) Players and staff tested using rapid results test kits prior to entering the weight room for team workouts and coming to practice. Not allowed to enter until a negative result is confirmed.
3) Fans not allowed in the stadium or to tailgate. Streets will be blocked off to prevent tailgating.
4) Fans encouraged to "tailgate" at home in small groups of 10-20.
5) All players, staff, and reporters, etc tested with rapid results test kits prior to entering the stadium on game day. Not allowed to enter any facilities prior to a confirmed negative result.

I think that measures like this will be valuable - they show people that we can get back to business as long as we take additional safety precautions.

The contagious aspect of a virus isn't relevant? Please.
So many words, but you're just babbling to avoid the real reasons nobody should jump to get games going quickly.

 

[madguy30]

That's fine, but it's also not particularly a relevant point either, which is why I asked you to clarify. It doesn't really challenge or address my main point - that college football programs have caused the death of players and staff through negligence in the past without serious negative effects. Why should it be so drastically different if that negligent death is caused by an infectious disease? To go from a $70k fine to the entire NCAA football organization being banned is a very large step. The only reason I could see is if college football causes an outbreak that spreads to the general public, which is extremely unlikely if any kind of mitigation measures are in place.

If you want to challenge that playing football in any form is too risky and that it could lead to major outbreaks, that's fine. But make that claim then.



I'm trying to understand what scenario of college football you're imagining here. Are you assuming that it's either the exact same as the 2019 season or completely cancelled? If so, that definitely explains it...

Here are the measures I imagine will be in place if a 2020 season happens:

1) Players and staff kept isolated in university housing. Not allowed to leave team facilities during the season, starting with fall camp.
2) Players and staff tested using rapid results test kits prior to entering the weight room for team workouts and coming to practice. Not allowed to enter until a negative result is confirmed.
3) Fans not allowed in the stadium or to tailgate. Streets will be blocked off to prevent tailgating.
4) Fans encouraged to "tailgate" at home in small groups of 10-20.
5) All players, staff, and reporters, etc tested with rapid results test kits prior to entering the stadium on game day. Not allowed to enter any facilities prior to a confirmed negative result.

I think that measures like this will be valuable - they show people that we can get back to business as long as we take additional safety precautions.

What do you do with the players that can't play because they tested positive? They gonna miss 2 or 3 games?

What if 3/10 of the people tailgating together are carriers without knowing it?