All Things COVID-19 College Football Impact

Donate To GopherHole
short ornery norwegian said:
I would expect the protocol to go something like this:
Player X tests positive. he has to sit out for 10 days or until he has two consecutive negative tests.
Any player that Player X came into contact with has to sit out until they have tested negative.

Meaning- it all comes down to frequency of testing and how soon they get results. if they can use the so-called rapid tests that give results the same day, then you could test all your linemen and if they test negative, they're OK to play that week.

I would guess that a few players will miss games. the real impact could be on practice. how do you hold an organized practice when you have a certain number of players sitting out because they tested positive, or they are waiting to see if their tests come back negative.

Maybe a whole new category on the injured list: players awaiting test results.

And the depth chart will be even more worthless than usual.

And - would a coach try to conceal a player's covid-19 status to keep the opponent from finding out?
Click to expand...
Bolded: nope. That's excessive.

Just test that player. If they test negative, then that's that. Keep testing them every day.

The tests are already "excessive" in how they work -- you get a positive for just having some piece of virus genome in your sample, regardless if that is from a dead/inactive piece of a virus., and regardless if you're actually contagious.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
I would expect the protocol to go something like this:
Player X tests positive. he has to sit out for 10 days or until he has two consecutive negative tests.
Any player that Player X came into contact with has to sit out until they have tested negative.

Meaning- it all comes down to frequency of testing and how soon they get results. if they can use the so-called rapid tests that give results the same day, then you could test all your linemen and if they test negative, they're OK to play that week.

I would guess that a few players will miss games. the real impact could be on practice. how do you hold an organized practice when you have a certain number of players sitting out because they tested positive, or they are waiting to see if their tests come back negative.

Maybe a whole new category on the injured list: players awaiting test results.

And the depth chart will be even more worthless than usual.

And - would a coach try to conceal a player's covid-19 status to keep the opponent from finding out?
Click to expand...
I agree with this, but once you have it, you're not going to test negative for 10-14 days. So if today, 4 O-lineman test positive, they're out this week and next week. If next week 4 more do, you're probably screwed for next Saturday's game.

I'm sure coaches will be as vague as they can. They can always hide behind student privacy. It won't be hard to figure out though.
 

MplsGopher said:
Bolded: nope. That's excessive.

Just test that player. If they test negative, then that's that. Keep testing them every day.

The tests are already "excessive" in how they work -- you get a positive for just having some piece of virus genome in your sample, regardless if that is from a dead/inactive piece of a virus., and regardless if you're actually contagious.
Click to expand...
Assuming we have adequate tests, there's no reason you wouldn't test everyone he had contact with. That's supposed to be the protocol for everyone. If they're tested daily they're not out more than 1 day.
 

MplsGopher said:
It’s purely a hypothetical ... but it could well come down to something like 300k deaths by the end of this calendar year, then then the rest saved by vaccine vs would have been 500k deaths with following Sweden model from the start.

To me, the measures taken and the damage done to the economy would still have been worth it.
Click to expand...

A bit short of Biden's 120 million number.:rolleyes: Huh!
 

if they play the season, they’ll just have to accept that the overwhelming majority of players who haven’t already been infected will get it eventually, with the understanding that there is almost zero risk of death among this group. Ideally, most of them will have already had it before the season starts. Maybe that’s the goal.
 


howeda7 said:
Assuming we have adequate tests, there's no reason you wouldn't test everyone he had contact with. That's supposed to be the protocol for everyone. If they're tested daily they're not out more than 1 day.
Click to expand...
I thought he was saying you get quarantined for two weeks just for having contact with a player who tests positive.

Just test that player, test every day for two weeks (if not already testing every player every day anyway).


By the way, I hope they have a better way than jamming those ten foot long qtips down their nose. Having to do that every day? Have fun!
 

PitinoFan said:
if they play the season, they’ll just have to accept that the overwhelming majority of players who haven’t already been infected will get it eventually, with the understanding that there is almost zero risk of death among this group. Ideally, most of them will have already had it before the season starts. Maybe that’s the goal.
Click to expand...
Goal would mean there is an effort to purposefully infect. Doubt that. But otherwise, if it happens, then those players are good for the rest of the season.
 

MplsGopher said:
Goal would mean there is an effort to purposefully infect. Doubt that. But otherwise, if it happens, then those players are good for the rest of the season.
Click to expand...

Maybe not an “effort to purposely infect,” but they aren’t doing much to protect themselves from infection away from the facilities. I don’t think this is unique to Minnesota, given the numbers reported so far. I’d like to see serology testing done with these players too. The numbers of past infections are probably quite high!
 

PitinoFan said:
Maybe not an “effort to purposely infect,” but they aren’t doing much to protect themselves from infection away from the facilities. I don’t think this is unique to Minnesota, given the numbers reported so far. I’d like to see serology testing done with these players too. The numbers of past infections are probably quite high!
Click to expand...
The announcement posted to gopher sports.com, I think a month ago?, said they’d do both types of testing.
 



MplsGopher said:
I thought he was saying you get quarantined for two weeks just for having contact with a player who tests positive.

Just test that player, test every day for two weeks (if not already testing every player every day anyway).


By the way, I hope they have a better way than jamming those ten foot long qtips down their nose. Having to do that every day? Have fun!
Click to expand...
That is currently the rule for most people, but that's because they don't want to "waste" tests. I assume the schools will have access to tests. Sadly we are not yet at a level of having enough.
 

Clemson appears to be in the lead to get their entire team infected. Good for them?

 

PitinoFan said:
Clemson appears to be in the lead to get their entire team infected. Good for them?

Click to expand...
No way that happens “organically”. It was organized, amongst the players. That’s my story and I’m stickin with it!
 

to clarify -

Player X tests positive. He goes into quarantine.

Anyone he came into contact with is tested. if they test positive, they go into quarantine also. But, if they test negative, they're OK to resume playing. So, just because Player X is positive, and I had lunch with him, that doesn't mean I have to quarantine UNLESS I test positive, too.

I am modeling this on the protocol that the MN Baseball Association is using for Amateur Baseball teams this summer.
 



short ornery norwegian said:
to clarify -

Player X tests positive. He goes into quarantine.

Anyone he came into contact with is tested. if they test positive, they go into quarantine also. But, if they test negative, they're OK to resume playing. So, just because Player X is positive, and I had lunch with him, that doesn't mean I have to quarantine UNLESS I test positive, too.

I am modeling this on the protocol that the MN Baseball Association is using for Amateur Baseball teams this summer.
Click to expand...
But why not just test every player and coach every day, anyway?
 

PitinoFan said:
If I come in contact with someone who tests positive, I’m required to quarantine for 14 days, whether I test positive or not. Are you saying it shouldn’t be the same for football players?

I don’t think this is going to work.
Click to expand...

Contact is defined by the CDC as 15 minutes of exposure within 6 feet without PPE. That should never happen in the facility. While playing I wonder if they won’t have full face lexan shields or face masks mandated for the linemen, although the boys will be more slightly more likely to end up in the hospital for heat injury than COVID-19. Shield fogging will also be an issue in the cooler months unless a nation that sent a man to the moon can figure out a way to keep a face shield from fogging with redirected filtered exhalation, perhaps a heating element, and so on.


.
 
Last edited:


Pompous Elitist said:
Contact is defined by the CDC as 15 minutes of exposure within 6 feet without PPE. That should never happen in the facility. While playing I wonder if they won’t have full face lexan shields or face masks mandated for the linemen, although the boys will be more slightly more likely to end up in the hospital for heat injury than COVID-19. Shield fogging will also be an issue in the cooler months unless a nation that sent a man to the moon can figure out a way to keep a face shield from fogging with redirected filtered exhalation, perhaps a heating element, and so on.


.
Click to expand...

 


howeda7 said:
There's a point at which it doesn't make sense to play though. I know college rosters are huge, but let's say your offensive line all gets it at the same time and you're down 4 healthy O-lineman. Should you still play? You're almost certainly going to lose and your risk getting your QB killed. You're almost certainly going to forfeit that week.
Click to expand...
Not if it's a home game $$$$$
 

Exhibit A from Pitinofan.

Some people want to crawl in a hole for the next two years. Mitigate risk, devise workarounds, be smart, accept life has some level of inherent absolute and relative risk. We have lost our collective minds. There are huge societal downsides to keeping kids out of school.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Exhibit A from Pitinofan.

Some people want to crawl in a hole for the next two years. Mitigate risk, devise workarounds, be smart, accept life has some level of inherent absolute and relative risk. We have lost our collective minds. There are huge societal downsides to keeping kids out of school.
Click to expand...

Of course life has some level of risk.

The issue is - how much risk is acceptable, and (the big one) who makes that decision?

Let's say for sake of argument that the college FB season resumes. At some point, at least some players will become infected, no matter how many precautions are adopted.

And now we get to the heart of the matter - at what point do you say the cost of playing is too high?

that will depend on how many players test positive, and more importantly, how many players actually get sick or even wind up in the hospital.

do we keep playing no matter how many players get sick? do we keep playing if a player dies? If a coach dies? The odds of that happening may be small, but it's still a possibility - more so for older coaches.

Like it or not, college football is not "necessary" in the great scheme of things. If there is no college football, you and I might not like it, but life will go on.
 

I’d argue school is necessary.

Football is not necessary, but I’d argue relatively low risk for healthy participants. Coaches should wear appropriate PPE and keep distancing.

We’ve had enough hypotheticals to last a lifetime. There are numbers and data now we didn’t have 3 months ago. Some will not let go of their worst fears no matter what the data shows. This is a diagnosable anxiety-related condition. A zero risk tolerance policy for schools OTOH is a symptom of a society gone nuts with risk aversion above all else (for various reasons), without considering unintended consequences. Its not as important for college as k-12 but postponing life does have health consequences unrelated to viral illness. It’s time to acknowledge that.
 

What did we do for that one disease that mostly doesn't kill people and in fact mostly doesn't even give bad symptoms at all for the vast majority of people, but also randomly kills even healthy young people, and with a pretty steep slope is more likely to kill people as they get older?

You know, that one disease just like that in our past?

Oh, my bad, we've never had something like this in the history of humanity.

Yeah, it's weird how none of our existing models are able to predict this well. It's weird how no one can "get it right" and everything we try gets screwed up. Weird.
 

MplsGopher said:
What did we do for that one disease that mostly doesn't kill people and in fact mostly doesn't even give bad symptoms at all for the vast majority of people, but also randomly kills even healthy young people, and with a pretty steep slope is more likely to kill people as they get older?

You know, that one disease just like that in our past?

Oh, my bad, we've never had something like this in the history of humanity.

Yeah, it's weird how none of our existing models are able to predict this well. It's weird how no one can "get it right" and everything we try gets screwed up. Weird.
Click to expand...

Your BFF Stefan has a model with extremely good bones. The best.
 



MplsGopher said:
No, because you'll be wearing a mask. Small price to pay
Click to expand...
Can I uncover my nose?

And for the record I'm about a 6.6 on the Covid Fear Scale. Susceptible on at least 3 factors depending on what day it is. And yes, will likely be wearing a mask depending on the fan density around me.

Ironically our part of 211 is often less packed, so we'll see.

I guess hoping for bad weather in November is a good thing this year.
 


short ornery norwegian said:
Of course life has some level of risk.

The issue is - how much risk is acceptable, and (the big one) who makes that decision?

Let's say for sake of argument that the college FB season resumes. At some point, at least some players will become infected, no matter how many precautions are adopted.

And now we get to the heart of the matter - at what point do you say the cost of playing is too high?

that will depend on how many players test positive, and more importantly, how many players actually get sick or even wind up in the hospital.

do we keep playing no matter how many players get sick? do we keep playing if a player dies? If a coach dies? The odds of that happening may be small, but it's still a possibility - more so for older coaches.

Like it or not, college football is not "necessary" in the great scheme of things. If there is no college football, you and I might not like it, but life will go on.
Click to expand...
I think that will or at least should be the main factor when trying to decide if the season should keep going. I don't think the season should end if a few people on each team are hospitalized because to a certain point playing football can be more dangerous for the athletes than the virus itself. But if you see large numbers of athletes needing to be hospitalized they may have to end the season.
 
Last edited:

“Quarantined”

That could mean:

a) The team is quarantining, to minimize contact with the public.

b) Those three tested positive.

c) Bateman is just joking around.

 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom