There is a real possibility. . .

[PAcuse]

just like wegmans we all line up in an orderly fashion wearing masks and the 50% who are not at risk have a much better time

How many people are not going to follow that on the way out?
How log is it going to take to get everyone in?
Just seems like a ton of work and the University is opening itself to lawsuits because a few idiots can't follow orders.
It's doable sure but I'm not sure how effective it would work.

 

[upperdeck]

well when you remove the beer alot more people can follow directions

 

[PAcuse]

well when you remove the beer alot more people can follow directions

That is true.
I have faith in myself and most of you on this board but in general society I've lost most faith in them tbh.

 

[Sudano]

How do you get 5-10k into the dome at a safe distance from each other?
It doesn't make sense to have people lining up next to each other and then spacing them out, to late at that point.
It's going to have to be and all or nothing when they go live or it will be a nightmare getting people in and out.

Line up? 14 gates, means less than 714 per gate. Stagger entry times, start 1 hr before kickoff. 2 lines per
gate. 357 per line over the hour. 6 a minute. doable. not likely but doable.

 

[longtimefan]

Line up? 14 gates, means less than 714 per gate. Stagger entry times, start 1 hr before kickoff. 2 lines per
gate. 357 per line over the hour. 6 a minute. doable. not likely but doable.

Don't know if the general public is ready for that level of regimentation. Of course 6 or 9 months from now may be a whole new ballgame.

Anyway, my original point was that if football gets pushed back, the New Dome could be a very busy place after the first of next year. My thought was that the games would be played in an empty arena.

 

[upperdeck]

you listen to these experts like the UCLA guy who was on today.. many of them expect treatments that will work and not that far out. if they come up with a treatment what level of danger do we live with? maybe its normal life but not dense crowds for some?

 

[longtimefan]

you listen to these experts like the UCLA guy who was on today.. many of them expect treatments that will work and not that far out. if they come up with a treatment what level of danger do we live with? maybe its normal life but not dense crowds for some?

There will still be a need for tests, and millions of them. How do you know who needs treatment if you can't first diagnose the condition?

And, we are way behind on developing large numbers of tests.

 

[upperdeck]

we are only behind on tests because of idiots in charge.. whether they ever get it fixed is the question.. At least the labs are ready to do more tests now if we had the right materials

 

[JeffCuse]

We can't even get enough tests to test sick people. MAYBE the pro leagues can handle this, but I would be absolutely blown away to see college and universities have the capacity to test 10,000 people, nevermind 50-100k.

 

[All4SU]

Will the players be wearing masks too? Will the linemen have to stand 6 feet apart?

It doesn’t work on any practical level.

 

[Brian Orange]

The more I think about it the more I think spring football is the answer next year as well. My guess is we should know around July 4th at the latest if the students are allowed back on campus for the fall. That would be D-Day for fall football.

No matter what, college football will be much harder to get off the ground than the NFL. Just so, so many issues with college.

 

[RandomGuy]

If this is replicated in other areas of the country, maybe it changes things? If nothing else, mildly good news in a horrible news cycle.

Early antibody testing suggests COVID-19 infections in L.A. County greatly exceed documented cases

The early results of USC/Los Angeles County antibody testing show a surprising number of residents have been infected with COVID-19.

news.usc.edu

 

[longtimefan]

If this is replicated in other areas of the country, maybe it changes things? If nothing else, mildly good news in a horrible news cycle.

Early antibody testing suggests COVID-19 infections in L.A. County greatly exceed documented cases

The early results of USC/Los Angeles County antibody testing show a surprising number of residents have been infected with COVID-19.

news.usc.edu

The new figures still indicate only ~4% infection rate, far less than is needed to trigger herd immunity.

A concern is that this indication of a less-than-previously-thought mortality rate will encourage the more reckless to go for intentional infection (via COVID "parties" or such). At least a couple of problems with this--the duration of immunity is not known; the reinfections seen in South Korea are troubling. And, we could see a whole horde of "Typhoid Mary" carriers--people who are not themselves ill, but are infecting many vulnerable people they come in contact with.

 

[RandomGuy]

The new figures still indicate only ~4% infection rate, far less than is needed to trigger herd immunity.

A concern is that this indication of a less-than-previously-thought mortality rate will encourage the more reckless to go for intentional infection (via COVID "parties" or such). At least a couple of problems with this--the duration of immunity is not known; the reinfections seen in South Korea are troubling. And, we could see a whole horde of "Typhoid Mary" carriers--people who are not themselves ill, but are infecting many vulnerable people they come in contact with.

That's my concern, as well. There was a German study by Hendrik Streeck that indicated a 15% infection rate. (Issues with methodology).

A long way to go. It's the only "positive" I've seen. With additional demographic/geographic studies, maybe there is a chance for fall sports? We'll see

And as you stated, S.Korea had almost won, minus 1 "super spreader" (typhoid Mary) that restarted the curve.

 

[reedny]

The new figures still indicate only ~4% infection rate, far less than is needed to trigger herd immunity.

A concern is that this indication of a less-than-previously-thought mortality rate will encourage the more reckless to go for intentional infection (via COVID "parties" or such). At least a couple of problems with this--the duration of immunity is not known; the reinfections seen in South Korea are troubling. And, we could see a whole horde of "Typhoid Mary" carriers--people who are not themselves ill, but are infecting many vulnerable people they come in contact with.

We have these now.

 

[longtimefan]

We have this now.

Could get worse if some interpret a lower mortality risk as a signal to self-infect.

 

[reedny]

Could get worse if some interpret a lower mortality risk as a signal to self-infect.

The problem is ... we won't know the answer to that until surveillance testing starts. And that subject has become a political football. The federal government pretends that the states should test; and the states contend that their facilities and raw materials are a fraction of what is needed. I tend to believe the states because shortage complaints are being leveled by governors across the country on both sides of the aisle.

Either way, without testing the numbers are truly ugly. We have 250,000 infections in NY. If the link you cited is to be believed, we should multiply the number of known-infected times 28-55 to determine the number of carriers. The mean coefficient is 41.5, but if we use 40 - that's 10M Typhoid Mary's in NY alone. I'm as anxious as anyone to return to "normal", but clearly that is not going to be possible without a massive upscaling of testing. If we can't test we don't know who's sick (or recovered or immune). And until we can identify and isolate the sick, we can't work or recreate normally. Simple as that.

The main hurdle is not testing "capacity" (the number of labs or machines). It's raw materials. China makes the majority of the testing products and almost all of the PPE. Since they're not willing or able to meet demand, we find ourselves with our collective pants down. Our lust for cheap overseas goods has created a severe supply chain dependency that threatens us militarily and is now killing tens of thousands of our citizens and robbing our economy of hundreds of billions of dollars. I hope people remember this when they look at product labels. Maybe some day congress will ignore the "free marketeers", incentivize domestic manufacturing and place responsible limits on trade with military rivals.

 

[longtimefan]

The problem is ... we won't know the answer to that until surveillance testing starts. And that subject has become a 10th amendment political football - with the federal government pretending that the states should test and the states responding that their facilities and raw materials are a fraction of what is needed. I tend to believe the states because this is a uniform sentiment of governors across the country on both sides of the aisle.

Without testing ... the numbers are not pretty. We have 250,000 infections in NY. If the link you cited is to be believed, multiply that number times 28-55 to determine the number of carriers. The mean coefficient is 41.5, but if we use 40 - that's 10M Typhoid Mary's in NY alone. I mean, I'm as anxious as everyone else to return to "normal", but clearly that is not going to be possible without a massive upscaling of testing. If we can't test we can't work or play. Simple as that.

The main hurdle is not testing "capacity" (i.e., the number of labs or machines). It's the lack of supplies. We don't have the stuff - vials, reagents, swabs, etc,. This is because China makes most of it and the demand signal has spiked. So our supply chain dependency has bought us a serious public health crisis.

So next time you hear "free market" nonsense from the global capitalists ... remind them of the pickle we're in right now. China can turn its cheap manufacturing spigot on or off as Xi pleases - depriving us of markets, a significant portion of our consumer products, life-saving drugs, shipping vessels, critical raw materials for electronics, it goes on and on. We have only ourselves to blame.

"The main hurdle is not testing "capacity" (i.e., the number of labs or machines). It's the lack of supplies. We don't have the stuff - vials, reagents, swabs, etc,. This is because China makes most of it and the demand signal has spiked. So our supply chain dependency has bought us a serious public health crisis."

This is the point. Trump/Pence can point to their maps speckled with different colored dots all they want. An abundance of labs and techs is one thing, but without the supplies to perform the tests, they can all twiddle their thumbs.

 

[RandomGuy]

The preliminary test results "might" indicate a 0.15% to 0.3 % mortality rate. (Current US 5.2%) Flu is about 0.1%

To compare this to the Flu is folly. We dont know enough, yet. Demographic, geographic, progression, density could have different results.

If repeatedly duplicated, it might change mitigation strategy. Maybe it wont even be crazy to get sports back? Hoping we get dozens and dozens of these results back from all around the country.

 

[Hoo's That]

When I look at everything that has been said in this thread, the conclusion I draw is that, given all the logistical, security, etc., problems that everyone notes, I think it's unlikely that the schools will allow spectators at any of the games until the 2021-22 school year. Everything will be on TV, but without spectators in the stands.

 

[Newhouser]

SUNY schools not having students back until January per a buddy who's kid attends.

 

[sutomcat]

When I look at everything that has been said in this thread, the conclusion I draw is that, given all the logistical, security, etc., problems that everyone notes, I think it's unlikely that the schools will allow spectators at any of the games until the 2021-22 school year. Everything will be on TV, but without spectators in the stands.

I keep seeing people in power positions in college athletics who disagree.
Pretty sure it has been decided that college football will not be played with no fans in the stands (except in New Brunswick; they have been grandfathered in due to a long standing tradition).

It isn't economically viable. 75% of the revenue for college football comes from the gate.

At this point, I don't see college football happening until

1) the students are back on campus and

2) the fans are in the stands

It seems really unlikely we are going to have either of these by September, at least in most schools. That is why the idea of playing college football in the spring semester is getting so much traction.

We are fortunate in the ACC to have schools in locations (or with venues) where games could conceivably be played, even in January. Only BC and Pitt would be problems and their home games would surely get rescheduled for late in the season, when the weather is a bit better.

If we play college football in the spring, what happens to the B1G? They would be in real trouble.

 

[orange_in_VA]

I keep seeing people in power positions in college athletics who disagree.
Pretty sure it has been decided that college football will not be played with no fans in the stands (except in New Brunswick; they have been grandfathered in due to a long standing tradition).

It isn't economically viable. 75% of the revenue for college football comes from the gate.

At this point, I don't see college football happening until

1) the students are back on campus and

2) the fans are in the stands

It seems really unlikely we are going to have either of these by September, at least in most schools. That is why the idea of playing college football in the spring semester is getting so much traction.

We are fortunate in the ACC to have schools in locations (or with venues) where games could conceivably be played, even in January. Only BC and Pitt would be problems and their home games would surely get rescheduled for late in the season, when the weather is a bit better.

If we play college football in the spring, what happens to the B1G? They would be in real trouble.

75% of revenue comes from Ticket Sales? Is there a source for that? Genuinely curious. That just seems wrong to me.

 

[SUFan44]

I keep seeing people in power positions in college athletics who disagree.
Pretty sure it has been decided that college football will not be played with no fans in the stands (except in New Brunswick; they have been grandfathered in due to a long standing tradition).

It isn't economically viable. 75% of the revenue for college football comes from the gate.

At this point, I don't see college football happening until

1) the students are back on campus and

2) the fans are in the stands

It seems really unlikely we are going to have either of these by September, at least in most schools. That is why the idea of playing college football in the spring semester is getting so much traction.

We are fortunate in the ACC to have schools in locations (or with venues) where games could conceivably be played, even in January. Only BC and Pitt would be problems and their home games would surely get rescheduled for late in the season, when the weather is a bit better.

If we play college football in the spring, what happens to the B1G? They would be in real trouble.

I do not think this is accurate.

Operations budgets, coaching salaries, and all of the other bells and whistles needed to run Division I football is largely funded through TV money.

If TV money is withheld, it would be a huge loss for every single athletic department at the BCS level. They will definitely play football without fans if it recoups the majority of TV money.

 

[UpstateSM]

An overwhelming majority of FBS ADs think football is going to be played in the fall