Future of Division III

[Oline89]

Has anyone actually seen it documented how many levels of bureaucracy need to be cleared in order for football to be played in the fall?  I assume there needs to be clearance from (in descending order) federal, state, county, NCAA, League and finally individual school.  I assume that at any of these levels a "veto" could be applied. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Has anyone actually seen it documented how many levels of bureaucracy need to be cleared in order for football to be played in the fall?  I assume there needs to be clearance from (in descending order) federal, state, county, NCAA, League and finally individual school.  I assume that at any of these levels a "veto" could be applied.

I'm not sure about a few of those ... county and NCAA or even conference.

County - that depends on the state, actually. Each place is going to be different, so that may or may not exist.

NCAA - the NCAA is basically allowing schools and conferences to make the decisions that are best for them. The NCAA will only control one thing, ultimately, and that is post-season tournaments (and as most should know, that does NOT include the FBS stuff). If the NCAA decides not to hold the championships, that doesn't mean teams can't still play schedules up until that point. So, I don't expect the NCAA to tell schools and such they can't have teams or seasons this year (remember, they didn't do that in the spring, either).

League (Conference) - There may be some that have all-conference decisions and there may be some that the conferences have guidelines, but I think if a school wants to field it's team(s) and others that don't ... so be it. Conferences (and the NCAA) are going to help schools with whatever decisions they make, but I don't think any of them are "clearly" their schools to start or not start. Like I said, there may be some who decide to cancel seasons (I am hearing rumblings I hope are inaccurate or jumping the gun), but I think they were be rare at this stage - let's remember, a LOT can chance in a matter of days, weeks, etc.

I'll throw in federal to some extent - so far, the federal government hasn't dictated anything especially when it comes to sports. I am not sure they are going to be involved in this at all. The states have had the control and power basically because each state is dealing with things other states may not be dealing with. Federal may put out regulations or guidelines from the CDC, but I don't envision the federal government dictate whether "small college number 104" can have it's teams or not.

Let's also remember ... there is more than football involved here. All sports this fall and moving forward will have different challenges that those individual sports bring to the table that need to be handled or at least planned accordingly.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I think the only two actual restrictions that exist are some gathering limits in some states that might affect a football practice and, I believe, NY State still have restrictions on campuses being open - other than that, it's up to what the schools are comfortable with.

[Ron Boerger]

I don't see a lot of colleges in the states where new COVID cases are developing out of control (hello TEXAS) being able to have students on campus in less than two months, happy statements by college presidents, SIDs, or conference heads notwithstanding. 

And if you can't get all students on campus, you're not going to have athletics, at least not in D3.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I don't see a lot of colleges in the states where new COVID cases are developing out of control (hello TEXAS) being able to have students on campus in less than two months, happy statements by college presidents, SIDs, or conference heads notwithstanding. 

And if you can't get all students on campus, you're not going to have athletics, at least not in D3.

The big number to watch is hospitalizations.  Here in Delaware we had a good five weeks of decreasing numbers of people in the hospital, all while the number of cases continued to rise.  I'm sure some states really are seeing troubling increases in spread, for us it was more about having testing more widely available.  We were identifying more asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic folks.

Texas and Arizona and Florida are almost definitely seeing spread, but I've found the number of people in the hospital seems to be much more indicative of where there's real trouble.

[jamtod]

Indications from Arizona (and I believe Texas, although I haven't seen as many articles on that) suggest that COVID-related hospitalization is on a steady rise there.

[jknezek]

Indications from Arizona (and I believe Texas, although I haven't seen as many articles on that) suggest that COVID-related hospitalization is on a steady rise there.

Alabama is struggling with hospitalizations in some areas, specifically Montgomery and more rural areas. FL hospitalizations are back on the rise reaching the highest since May 25 on a 7 day rolling basis, though it doesn't seem to be anywhere near capacity of course. The question becomes... does anyone care?

In AL, the mainstream answer is generally no. The majority of people are simply done. Despite alarming numbers... fewer masks, more large gatherings, and more allowed contact for sports, restaurants, and businesses continues to happen. I suspect in the more skeptical areas of the country, which involve a lot of major college football areas, that will be the way of it. I also suspect major athletics will go on at h.s and major college levels. We will see.

[Ron Boerger]

Texas' case load is unfortunately on a near exponential curve (see this link, data from Johns Hopkins), increasing by 3-4K cases per day (and growing), closing in on 120,000 cases.  This increase is well in excess of what could be expected from increased testing rates.   COVID hospitalizations have doubled from under 1700 at the end of May to over 3400 yesterday (22 days to double and likely not reflective of the recent rapid increase in cases as hospitalizations are a trailing indicator).  Many high schools that had started voluntary football workouts have had to shut them down due to COVID infections.   I can't see schools being willing to put their students at risk in less than two months given these trends.

Despite today saying that "COVID-19 is now spreading at an unacceptable rate in Texas," the governor (Abbott) refuses to require facial masking or to even allow local governments to issue such directives.   The only concession he has made was last week when after weeks of frustration San Antonio's county issued a directive that businesses may require customers/ employees to mask, he stated "[e]arlier today the county judge in Bexar County finally figured that out" rather than give such guidance at the beginning of the month when he dictated that local officials couldn't do anything to require masks.  This ends up making businesses (and front-line workers) enforce masking, rather than government.

There is absolutely *nothing* on the horizon to slow the spread of COVID in this state.   More and more businesses are being opened and too many people in this red state are more concerned about their "freedom" rather than the health and welfare of themselves and those around them. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I wish more people understood what you understand, Ron. That increased testing certainly will increase positive cases to some degree, but at some point what we are seeing is well in excess of how that math works. If we are still seeing positive cases increasing, there is a problem. No one testing positive to this now has been positive since February. I am just amazed at how many don't grasp that concept.

[OzJohnnie]

End state?  It's either a cure or normalized spread in the community like any other virus.  And with no vaccine guaranteed (still no vaccine for AIDS 40 years later or SARS I 10 years later) then widespread infection and dreaded herd immunity, like with every other FLI virus, is the only guaranteed end state.  The virus cannot be eradicated, nor should it as it's no small pox or MERS, so the challenge is to manage the spread balancing the restrictions against our ability to treat the symptoms.

Slowing the spread and flattening the curve has slowly morphed into stop the spread and eliminate the curve.  Those new goals are unattainable and should be rejected.

[jamtod]

End state?  It's either a cure or normalized spread in the community like any other virus.  And with no vaccine guaranteed (still no vaccine for AIDS 40 years later or SARS I 10 years later) then widespread infection and dreaded herd immunity, like with every other FLI virus, is the only guaranteed end state.  The virus cannot be eradicated, nor should it as it's no small pox or MERS, so the challenge is to manage the spread balancing the restrictions against our ability to treat the symptoms.

Slowing the spread and flattening the curve has slowly morphed into stop the spread and eliminate the curve.  Those new goals are unattainable and should be rejected.

Something like what Australia achieved ought not be unattainable, and in parts of the US, the spread hasn't been slowed and the curve is rising rapidly for hospitalizations.
A vaccine is likely (I am hopeful, but it may take some time) and herd immunity from infection has never truly been the path for dealing with something like this (I welcome a counter-example) and would entail the kinds of "dooms-day" death modeling that you've ranted against (perhaps over a slightly longer timeline as the spread has been slowed and nearly stopped in many places), not to mention there is no guarantee how long-lasting that immunity is.

[OzJohnnie]

End state?  It's either a cure or normalized spread in the community like any other virus.  And with no vaccine guaranteed (still no vaccine for AIDS 40 years later or SARS I 10 years later) then widespread infection and dreaded herd immunity, like with every other FLI virus, is the only guaranteed end state.  The virus cannot be eradicated, nor should it as it's no small pox or MERS, so the challenge is to manage the spread balancing the restrictions against our ability to treat the symptoms.

Slowing the spread and flattening the curve has slowly morphed into stop the spread and eliminate the curve.  Those new goals are unattainable and should be rejected.

Something like what Australia achieved ought not be unattainable, and in parts of the US, the spread hasn't been slowed and the curve is rising rapidly for hospitalizations.
A vaccine is likely (I am hopeful, but it may take some time) and herd immunity from infection has never truly been the path for dealing with something like this (I welcome a counter-example) and would entail the kinds of "dooms-day" death modeling that you've ranted against (perhaps over a slightly longer timeline as the spread has been slowed and nearly stopped in many places), not to mention there is no guarantee how long-lasting that immunity is.

A counter example that herd immunity is viable?  Every other coronavirus work?  Rhinovirus?  Influenza?  Every epi/pandemic that's every happened?

Australia is a different situation to most places.  An extremely dry, hot and unpopulated country and the virus hit in summer.  The flu season is just taking off here and infections are on the rise, working their way north as the continent gets colder and wetter.  Of course, panic stations amongst the media types will set in but they shouldn't.  Bone dry weather and 100 degree days don't see much sickness at all, particularly the kind that need people to sneeze.  When you look at the southern hemisphere countries which are doing well and the ones that aren't the pattern becomes pretty clear - if you're packed in like sardines then you've got trouble.  In the northern hemisphere it becomes pretty clear as well - urbanised areas with high density housing and lots of public transport fare far worse that suburban drivers.

By the time this year is out, COVID-19 will prove about twice as deadly as the 2018 flu season.  Contrary to that year it will be overwhelming concentrated in the 65+ and even moreso in the 75+.  And by next flu season, despite efforts to gin up anxiety, it will be virtually undetectable.  Just one more bug on the list of things that hit each year.  I'm surer of that than I am of a Johnnie victory this year and I'm pretty up on that already.

EDIT: Also happening here, easier because only 102 people have died of the bug, is that the number of deaths is actually going down.  They are being reclassified as dying from COVID as opposed to dying with or just presumed to have died because symptoms.  After that panic passed the media and gov't have turned to tracking infections, a decreasingly distressing measure of course.  We have 148 infected people and only two in the hospital in Victoria, the state I live in.  That's not due to magic sauce but summer.

[jamtod]

End state?  It's either a cure or normalized spread in the community like any other virus.  And with no vaccine guaranteed (still no vaccine for AIDS 40 years later or SARS I 10 years later) then widespread infection and dreaded herd immunity, like with every other FLI virus, is the only guaranteed end state.  The virus cannot be eradicated, nor should it as it's no small pox or MERS, so the challenge is to manage the spread balancing the restrictions against our ability to treat the symptoms.

Slowing the spread and flattening the curve has slowly morphed into stop the spread and eliminate the curve.  Those new goals are unattainable and should be rejected.

Something like what Australia achieved ought not be unattainable, and in parts of the US, the spread hasn't been slowed and the curve is rising rapidly for hospitalizations.
A vaccine is likely (I am hopeful, but it may take some time) and herd immunity from infection has never truly been the path for dealing with something like this (I welcome a counter-example) and would entail the kinds of "dooms-day" death modeling that you've ranted against (perhaps over a slightly longer timeline as the spread has been slowed and nearly stopped in many places), not to mention there is no guarantee how long-lasting that immunity is.

A counter example that herd immunity is viable?  Every other coronavirus work?  Rhinovirus?  Influenza?  Every epi/pandemic that's every happened?

I'm talking herd immunity through infection. We achieve some degree for influenza through the vaccine, but immunity fades and it comes back annually anyway. Rhinovirus is not deadly and I see no indication that herd immunity has ever been close with that. Herd immunity through infection is just not a viable end game, unless you are willing to accept widespread infection and death (or you assume that the death rates and long-term repercussions are minimal, which is your prerogative)

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I think comparing C19 to HIV/AIDS in terms of finding a vaccine isn't exactly a fair comparison. C19 is like a lot of other viruses of it's kind ... so I suspect a vaccine is rather attainable. And it will likely be just like the flu (in the only comparison I'll ever make) in that there will be a yearly vaccine to help stave off whatever versions of the virus that may exist.

That all said, SARS broke out in 2003 ... it didn't have nearly the same infection rate and interestingly a vaccine was never created. It was found successful in animals, but it also had a side effect of creating an immune disease, so it was never tested in humans and the virus eventually disappeared. So, who knows ...

HIV/AIDS is such a different beast. I just don't think using it as a comparison is good because these two things aren't even related in the grand scheme of things.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

They're in final stage 3 human trials of a vaccine, that's promising enough the CDC has already begun to cultivate doses, with 100m to be ready by Jan 1st.  Pretty much as soon as the trials prove themselves, they'll be able to starting vaccinating people.  We just have to make it until then with no major hiccups.