Bowlsby comments on 2020 football season

agrabes

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2006
1,665
493
83
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.

Well, for one, I've never said we should jump to get games going quickly. I don't think starting in person team activities in 4 months (2 months after most experts say the general economy will slowly start to re-open) is overly fast. Throwing out one liners that don't really address what I've said doesn't really have any purpose. If you want to have a discussion about this, let's have one. If you don't, then let's be done with it. Heck, I'll declare you the winner - hope it brightens your day!

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?

Players testing positive - quarantine until medically cleared per whatever the latest medical guidance is. Same as any other person who tests positive. Only difference for a player/staff vs. the general public is that the team will have access to enough quick results testing that they can test possible contacts and clear uninfected people so that contacts who test negative won't have to quarantine.

People tailgating - This is based on the assumption that social distancing guidelines will be able to be relaxed enough by late August that small gatherings of 10-20 people are allowed for anyone for any reason. I think if that is not the case, then football will not happen. If social distancing has been somewhat relaxed, a 10 person tailgate is no greater risk than a family barbecue or people working together in an office - which would be allowed. If small scale outbreaks do happen, we will have the capability to isolate small outbreaks and contain them. Health care authorities like Dr. Fauci seem to consider those kinds of capabilities prerequisites for relaxing social distancing requirements. I think it's reasonable to assume that will happen by the end of summer.
 

Gunnerclone

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2010
69,044
69,060
113
DSM
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 rapid tests are you talking about? What rapid tests are you able to apparently just have an endless supply of to test all players, staff, coaches, managers, trainers every time they enter a new room so we can have college football? What rapid test are you talking about that has a 100% 0 false negative or false positive rate?
 

CycloneErik

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2008
105,835
49,715
113
Jamerica
rememberingdoria.wordpress.com
What rapid tests are you talking about? What rapid tests are you able to apparently just have an endless supply of to test all players, staff, coaches, managers, trainers every time they enter a new room so we can have college football? What rapid test are you talking about that has a 100% 0 false negative or false positive rate?

If those players are locked away in confinement/quarantine housing just to make the football money, they gotta be paid as pros.

Also, you're debating with a guy who doesn't think that contagion is relevant. Good luck.
 

Gunnerclone

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2010
69,044
69,060
113
DSM
If those players are locked away in confinement/quarantine housing just to make the football money, they gotta be paid as pros.

Also, you're debating with a guy who doesn't think that contagion is relevant. Good luck.

This is just like the 4th or 5th worst thing to happen to the world in the last century. It’s all good, we’ll just cruise on through this in 2 months.
 

CloneIce

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
36,575
19,419
113
Most people have stated that the college football landscape has gotten much too big and would at some point crash. I think it's pretty obvious that we're at the starting point of that. Schools are going to have to be much smarter with their money and how they invest it going forward.

Yeah I think you are right. It sure is a bummer. But it might be just as fun for us fans, hell game days could still be just as exciting - nothing on the field changes.
 

WhoISthis

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
5,580
3,535
113
Viruses are contagious. Head injuries, spinal injuries, heart attacks, heatstroke and whatever else are not.
It wasn't a complicated point.
Also not complicated is a reduction in spread (contagion) risk.

Society long ago accepted players facing risks to themselves. Spread risk is new, although things like MRSA have been around. With the controlled environment and testing, the spread risk for players and coaches can be reduced to acceptable levels.

On a related note, social distancing/lowering the curve isn’t about hiding until a vaccine. For a fringe segment, maybe it was, but at a public level, it was about spreading out the infected count so it didn’t overload medical infrastructure. By August, society will be able to handle a lot more.
 

Beyerball

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jun 18, 2013
7,399
6,693
113
Texas
You can’t have large gatherings without a cure for this virus. I’ve said all along that we will not have sports for over a year until we have a vaccine that can cure the virus. You’re not going to let MILLIONS of people on Saturday and Sundays tailgate and pack the stadiums and think the virus will hold or go down in numbers. Not happening. It’s just reality.

yea this is not going to happen in any way shape or form.

this ain’t Small pox with a 30% mortality or hell Measles with 15%.

I’m sorry but we aren’t going to continue to close down the world and sports over a 1-2% mortality..It just isn’t going to happen.

by early summer we will have a readily available antibody quick test..We have several now just not approved yet by FDA.

For sporting events there will be a system in place probably..wrist band etc..that shows you are in clear. If you haven’t had virus or been tested to show u are negative then you won’t get in.
 

Beyerball

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jun 18, 2013
7,399
6,693
113
Texas
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.

we have players dying ever year it seems over heat exhaustion. Although few in number it happens every year.

I get what u are saying for sure.

But people (not u) need to come to reality. Over 60;000 people die a year in this country from alcohol. Why don’t we just ban alcohol again? $$$ and entertainment.

what is sports? $$ and entertainment.
 

madguy30

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2011
50,166
46,989
113
yea this is not going to happen in any way shape or form.

this ain’t Small pox with a 30% mortality or hell Measles with 15%.

I’m sorry but we aren’t going to continue to close down the world and sports over a 1-2% mortality..It just isn’t going to happen.

by early summer we will have a readily available antibody quick test..We have several now just not approved yet by FDA.

For sporting events there will be a system in place probably..wrist band etc..that shows you are in clear. If you haven’t had virus or been tested to show u are negative then you won’t get in.

These have been found to be failures so far.
 

madguy30

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2011
50,166
46,989
113
we have players dying ever year it seems over heat exhaustion. Although few in number it happens every year.

I get what u are saying for sure.

But people (not u) need to come to reality. Over 60;000 people die a year in this country from alcohol. Why don’t we just ban alcohol again? $$$ and entertainment.

what is sports? $$ and entertainment.

Let me know when someone walks into a place drunk and it makes a bunch of other people drunk and potentially on ventilators.
 

WhoISthis

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
5,580
3,535
113
Let me know when someone walks into a place drunk and it makes a bunch of other people drunk and potentially on ventilators.
You’re right, it’s not an apt comparison.
But MADD would tell you booze inflicts damage on those that do not drink.
 

madguy30

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2011
50,166
46,989
113
You’re right, it’s not an apt comparison.
But MADD would tell you booze inflicts damage on those that do not drink.

Well no ****. I'm not saying it doesn't affect others. That goes for these other comparisons. Cancer and heart disease and drowning and accidental gun shots and and and are awful.

I'm just not sure why people are OK with more deaths so they can watch football.
 

WhoISthis

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
5,580
3,535
113
Well no ****. I'm not saying it doesn't affect others. That goes for these other comparisons. Cancer and heart disease and drowning and accidental gun shots and and and are awful.

I'm just not sure why people are OK with more deaths so they can watch football.
Well, you kind of implied it.

The same reasons as before COVID19 was added to the slew of risks- society values entertainment, and living in general, over tail risk, which is what it should be by fall.
 

cycloneML

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2008
4,965
1,988
113
I do not know many industries that can go 18 months without revenue and survive. You are right that a prudent executive is cautious, but if your choices are between taking some risks and quietly accepting extinction, you go down fighting.
UW has lost $100 million. They need a regular fall.
 

jsb

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 7, 2008
30,394
33,019
113
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.

it could be considered pretty cruel to make kids play in those conditions.
 

Al_4_State

Moderator
Staff member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 27, 2006
30,214
23,142
113
38
Driftless Region
Visit site
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!

Almost everything you’re saying about the risk of COVID-19 and football players applies to CTE.
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron