Do sports, and more specifically NCAAB, return?

[chrishoke]

I think how the pandemic has affected the St. Louis Cardinals proves what you have said. Major League baseball is a non-contact sport, well unless you're the Astros. And if MLB can't control this thing, how is the NFL going to. As for college football being played this fall, I don't see that happening either.

GoDuke!

FYI there is zero evidence that any of the MLB STL infections occurred on the field of play - just saying.

[jv001]

FYI there is zero evidence that any of the MLB STL infections occurred on the field of play - just saying.

Oh, I know. From what I've read, Yadi and some of the infected players said they don't know how they contracted the virus. I thought at first it may have begun in Jupiter(ST) but that was way back in March. The Cards train at the same facility with the Marlins who also had early problems but like I said, I don't see how that could have anything to do with it now.

GoCards!

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Splitting hairs indeed. So instead of needing to increase the practice squad by a factor of 10+, they'll "only" need to increase it by a factor of 6+.



And the result is that the MLB has missed a TON of games already, to the point that a complete season is already becoming untenable. And we're just a few weeks into the season. The NFL simply cannot use the "we'll just postpone these games whenever a team has an outbreak" approach that MLB has used and have any hopes of completing the season.



I don't see any reason to have faith that the NFL will handle this better than the MLB has. It comes down to the reality that you can't really stop infections from happening barring a bubble situation. And the nature of football and of COVID (with there being a risk of infection while presymptomatic) is such that, if a player gets infected, it's very likely to spread rapidly before being caught. And then you're in the same situation as MLB.

Remember: new infections aren't instantaneous. Let's say we have daily testing with immediate results, but (a) it isn't 100% accurate and (b) it lags infection by a day or two. Let's say one guy is infected on day x, and asymptomatic/presymptomatic. He spreads it to 2-3 players before he tests positive on day x+1. But those 2-3 players don't test positive for another 1-2 days (at best). So each of them spreads to 2-3 more players, who also don't get identified as positive for another day or 2 (again, at best). So within 4-5 days, you went from nobody to having 10+ cases. And so on, and so on. Even if folks take pretty good care to avoid infection, it takes very little for a team to get ravaged.

So the choices are to postpone/cancel a game anytime a team has positive tests (which is, unfortunately, the right strategy), or quarantine the players that you KNOW have tested positive and risk it by allowing the games to play despite the possibility that some infected players haven't been caught by testing yet (which is how you spread the disease easily across teams and risk a league-wide pandemic).

I don't disagree with you. On the practice squad point, you noted that MLB had more people available so I was just countering that by saying that effectively none of the extra people seem to be available, so that is not really a valid comparison.

Perhaps I am too optimistic but what I was trying to say is that football seems to be exercising a lot more caution than baseball. Football has spent months figuring out how to minimize risk (read Peter King's article today where he goes through a day in Texans training camp: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ia-peter-king/). It seemed like baseball was too busy fighting over their bargaining agreement and the nature of the season, then they just started it without having a plan in place. Totally agree that football by nature is much more conducive to spreading than baseball. Perhaps it is the nature of what I am reading (more about football than baseball) but football seems to be doing more to keep it out of the building. Since players are not in a bubble like the NBA, this likely has limited impact as who knows what they encounter when they go home every night. But it just seems to me like baseball was not really prepared for this while football is. Which, to your point, is worth nothing when one player catches it from a neighbor, is asymptomatic, passes it along in practice to someone who passes it along in a game, and they whole thing blows up.

[MChambers]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...s-disrupt-mlb/

Stroman praised the team’s approach to safety protocols, but he said (via the Athletic) that seeing outbreaks elsewhere “makes you realize how hard it is to make sure that everything is buttoned up, 24/7, from every angle.”

[Bob Green]

https://greensboro.com/sports/ed-har...iVja5iLDySlJyI

Thanks for the link. It would appear the inmates are running the asylum.

[Phredd3]

Let's say one guy is infected on day x, and asymptomatic/presymptomatic. He spreads it to 2-3 players before he tests positive on day x+1. But those 2-3 players don't test positive for another 1-2 days (at best). So each of them spreads to 2-3 more players, who also don't get identified as positive for another day or 2 (again, at best).

Wouldn't you switch to daily tests for people in contact with your hypothesized "one guy"? If that means the whole team, then the whole team gets tested daily. It's very unlikely for the incubators to be infectious before they test positive. If you did testing right, it seems to me that it should be possible to contain outbreaks within the team. It's the non-team activities that are the problem - people bringing it in from outside. I don't see how the whole system works without daily testing for everyone on every team, which is a lot of testing.

[CDu]

Wouldn't you switch to daily tests for people in contact with your hypothesized "one guy"? If that means the whole team, then the whole team gets tested daily. It's very unlikely for the incubators to be infectious before they test positive. If you did testing right, it seems to me that it should be possible to contain outbreaks within the team. It's the non-team activities that are the problem - people bringing it in from outside. I don't see how the whole system works without daily testing for everyone on every team, which is a lot of testing.

Unless you test “continuously” (like every few hours) AND receive accurate and instantaneous test results, there is inherently going to be a lag between when someone is infected and when you find out they are infected. During that window, they can expose others. They aren’t going to do continuous testing, and they aren’t going to get immediate and accurate test results. The best tests still take at least a day or two to process, if I recall correctly. So there really isn’t a way to control. You may be able to prevent a super spreader, but keeping it under control is unlikely.
1.

[CDu]

I don't disagree with you. On the practice squad point, you noted that MLB had more people available so I was just countering that by saying that effectively none of the extra people seem to be available, so that is not really a valid comparison.

Perhaps I am too optimistic but what I was trying to say is that football seems to be exercising a lot more caution than baseball. Football has spent months figuring out how to minimize risk (read Peter King's article today where he goes through a day in Texans training camp: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ia-peter-king/). It seemed like baseball was too busy fighting over their bargaining agreement and the nature of the season, then they just started it without having a plan in place. Totally agree that football by nature is much more conducive to spreading than baseball. Perhaps it is the nature of what I am reading (more about football than baseball) but football seems to be doing more to keep it out of the building. Since players are not in a bubble like the NBA, this likely has limited impact as who knows what they encounter when they go home every night. But it just seems to me like baseball was not really prepared for this while football is. Which, to your point, is worth nothing when one player catches it from a neighbor, is asymptomatic, passes it along in practice to someone who passes it along in a game, and they whole thing blows up.

My point with the practice squad was that - if they were truly going to do it right AND achieve a full season - they would have to quarantine everyone who came in contact with an infected player. You simply cannot play a game with guys who have practiced recently with an infected player. So you would need to have 2+ teams worth players available (and each “team” practicing separately) in hopes of having at least one of your “teams” have 0 positives as of game day. Otherwise, you have to cancel games and football just inherently can’t make up games easily. So a 16 man practice squad just won’t cut it.

Baseball COULD have kept playing had they chosen to quarantine the whole team and have the taxi squad step in. They chose not to do that (I guess somewhat out of competitive balance interest and somewhat out of precaution), but it was at least an option. But football wouldn’t even have the option with just a 16-man practice squad. Their choices would be cancel games (and fail to complete a full season) or play games with potentially infected players and risk the spread from team to team (as well as increasing the risk within a team).

[OldPhiKap]

My point with the practice squad was that - if they were truly going to do it right AND achieve a full season - they would have to quarantine everyone who came in contact with an infected player. You simply cannot play a game with guys who have practiced recently with an infected player. So you would need to have 2+ teams worth players available (and each “team” practicing separately) in hopes of having at least one of your “teams” have 0 positives as of game day. Otherwise, you have to cancel games and football just inherently can’t make up games easily. So a 16 man practice squad just won’t cut it.

Baseball COULD have kept playing had they chosen to quarantine the whole team and have the taxi squad step in. They chose not to do that (I guess somewhat out of competitive balance interest and somewhat out of precaution), but it was at least an option. But football wouldn’t even have the option with just a 16-man practice squad. Their choices would be cancel games (and fail to complete a full season) or play games with potentially infected players and risk the spread from team to team (as well as increasing the risk within a team).

Baseball has an advantage that, if games are postponed, you can play double-headers and make up the games. Can’t really reschedule a cancelled Saturday very easily.

[jimsumner]

Mountain West the next domino to fall.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...HtlkJ8JmHKOWuY

[cato]

Mountain West the next domino to fall.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...HtlkJ8JmHKOWuY

You beat me to it. I live in the Mountain West sphere (SDSU), but do not follow it as closely as the ACC. The Mountain West is more politically inclined to play, but less financially prepare than the ACC. Interesting to see which domino fell first. I personally have no doubt that Duke will play football when SDSU won’t.

[Sixthman]

We are either at or past the time for a great university to be a leader on this question. I think there is no case for playing football in the fall. If I am right, Duke should be out front advocating to shut a bad idea down. If I am wrong, Duke should be vocally making the case.

[sagegrouse]

We are either at or past the time for a great university to be a leader on this question. I think there is no case for playing football in the fall. If I am right, Duke should be out front advocating to shut a bad idea down. If I am wrong, Duke should be vocally making the case.

Impressed with the ACC's "radio silence" on the topic. Haven't heard a bleeping thing.

[gofurman]

Unless you test “continuously” (like every few hours) AND receive accurate and instantaneous test results, there is inherently going to be a lag between when someone is infected and when you find out they are infected. During that window, they can expose others. They aren’t going to do continuous testing, and they aren’t going to get immediate and accurate test results. The best tests still take at least a day or two to process, if I recall correctly. So there really isn’t a way to control. You may be able to prevent a super spreader, but keeping it under control is unlikely.
1.

actually I have friends now getting results in 20 minutes in drive thru testing in Dallas Fort Worth (just general people)... not sure why that isn't available everywhere. A friend that is a Dr got her results in 2 hours as a 'priority' person though that may be an exception

[cato]

Impressed with the ACC's "radio silence" on the topic. Haven't heard a bleeping thing.

Like our local school board, they must subscribe to the “loose lips sink ships” method of deliberation.

[CDu]

actually I have friends now getting results in 20 minutes in drive thru testing in Dallas Fort Worth (just general people)... not sure why that isn't available everywhere. A friend that is a Dr got her results in 2 hours as a 'priority' person though that may be an exception

Key word: “best”

There are quick tests, yes. From what I can tell, you trade accuracy for speed with those.

[Tooold]

We are either at or past the time for a great university to be a leader on this question. I think there is no case for playing football in the fall. If I am right, Duke should be out front advocating to shut a bad idea down. If I am wrong, Duke should be vocally making the case.

I agree completely. I cannot reconcile Duke’s two approaches: one for regular students who are only allowed back on campus in limited numbers and under strict social distancing rules, and the second for athletes, who will all be allowed back and allowed to practice and travel to play games. Much as I love college sports, and Duke sports in particular, these divergent strategies make absolutely no sense to me. I understand Duke is following ACC policies with respect to athletics, but it is time to lead. If the policies for athletes and non-athletes are going to be so different, there needs to be a clear rationale that puts the safety of students first.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I agree completely. I cannot reconcile Duke’s two approaches: one for regular students who are only allowed back on campus in limited numbers and under strict social distancing rules, and the second for athletes, who will all be allowed back and allowed to practice and travel to play games. Much as I love college sports, and Duke sports in particular, these divergent strategies make absolutely no sense to me. I understand Duke is following ACC policies with respect to athletics, but it is time to lead. If the policies for athletes and non-athletes are going to be so different, there needs to be a clear rationale that puts the safety of students first.

Agreed. It i$ difficult to under$tand thi$ line of thought and the contradiction$ therein.

[DoubleBlue]

'We want to play' movement sweeps across social media
https://www.wralsportsfan.com/we-wan...edia/19229106/

People are at just as much, if not more risk, if we don’t play. Players will all be sent home to their own communities where social distancing is highly unlikely and medical care and expenses will be placed on the families if they were to contract covid19
— Trevor Lawrence (@Trevorlawrencee) August 9, 2020

Not to mention the players coming from situations that are not good for them/ their future and having to go back to that. Football is a safe haven for so many people. We are more likely to get the virus in everyday life than playing football. Having a season also incentivizes
— Trevor Lawrence (@Trevorlawrencee) August 9, 2020

Players being safe and taking all of the right precautions to try to avoid contracting covid because the season/ teammates safety is on the line. Without the season, as we’ve seen already, people will not social distance or wear masks and take the proper precautions
— Trevor Lawrence (@Trevorlawrencee) August 9, 2020

[Tripping William]

I know this is like triple hearsay, but The Devil's Den is quoting Scott Satterfield, who is quoting Louisville administrators that ACC that "football is going forward."

https://247sports.com/college/duke/A...m_content=Link