FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[jamtod]

On the topic of playing in the Fall, we have to remember that football is inclusive of more than the low risk players. There are coaches, referees, bus drivers, janitors, equipment people tied to programs and games that are at risk. There are probably ways to mitigate risk with this, but it should not be forgotten.

Also, schools like Macalater are already actively planning for a later Fall start, and others are planning for hybrid class models of on-site + virtual. If kids aren't on campus that will be a challenge. The DIII university president is wired differently when it comes to decision making vs. a DI President. The loss of revenue from a single semester of athletics is minimal, with the exception of 1 in 1,000 type events like UST vs. SJU.

Is it harsh for me to suggest that high risk people avoid high risk activities?  Get new bus drivers?  Aged coaches retire or change roles?  Surely you can't cancel a whole season because the bus driver is 55 and has diabetes.

Yes.

So, less harsh to suspend the whole program and all the jobs and all the students?  How's that?

I'm really struggling with the calculus at work here.  Where else do we make risk judgements that the low at risk must accept the same conditions as the high at risk?  We accept that the young pay more for car insurance because they are risky drivers.  That adrenaline junkies pay more for life insurance if they can even get it.  The whole insurance industry and human existence is based on graduated and differing degrees of accepted risk.  Why is this now different?  A genuine question.

What is the "high risk" activity that the bus drivers, referees, coaches, janitors, and equipment people tied to these programs are undertaking and must sacrifice their jobs for? Being around people?

If that's what it is, yeah, I'm willing to wait a bit for my sports or consider alternative ways to make this work that don't entail just telling those people "tough luck."

[miac952]

On the topic of playing in the Fall, we have to remember that football is inclusive of more than the low risk players. There are coaches, referees, bus drivers, janitors, equipment people tied to programs and games that are at risk. There are probably ways to mitigate risk with this, but it should not be forgotten.

Also, schools like Macalater are already actively planning for a later Fall start, and others are planning for hybrid class models of on-site + virtual. If kids aren't on campus that will be a challenge. The DIII university president is wired differently when it comes to decision making vs. a DI President. The loss of revenue from a single semester of athletics is minimal, with the exception of 1 in 1,000 type events like UST vs. SJU.

Is it harsh for me to suggest that high risk people avoid high risk activities?  Get new bus drivers?  Aged coaches retire or change roles?  Surely you can't cancel a whole season because the bus driver is 55 and has diabetes.

Yes.

So, less harsh to suspend the whole program and all the jobs and all the students?  How's that?

I'm really struggling with the calculus at work here.  Where else do we make risk judgements that the low at risk must accept the same conditions as the high at risk?  We accept that the young pay more for car insurance because they are risky drivers.  That adrenaline junkies pay more for life insurance if they can even get it.  The whole insurance industry and human existence is based on graduated and differing degrees of accepted risk.  Why is this now different?  A genuine question.

That's the ultimate question, and it is also how a number of Governor's have tiered their step by step scale back on shelter in place orders. Balancing the economic benefit vs. public health risk. I don't envy them, no matter what side they are on. Significant sacrifices are being made either way. For the NFL, the economic benefit is significant, for DIII much less so. Risk is similar in each scenario.

[OzJohnnie]

What is the "high risk" activity that the bus drivers, referees, coaches, janitors, and equipment people tied to these programs are undertaking and must sacrifice their jobs for? Being around people?

If that's what it is, yeah, I'm willing to wait a bit for my sports or consider alternative ways to make this work that don't entail just telling those people "tough luck."

But we are right now telling everyone, even those at no discernibly different risk than they face any ordinary day, to take actions which neither make them safer or those more at risk.  It's not just your viewing pleasure that is impacted by the wait you're willing to take, but the jobs and families of all the associated people who aren't at risk.  And not just people in the sporting program but in the whole school that relies on the sporting program to get paid.  Does the calculus that says it's no big deal to wait a year to watch some football take those consequences into consideration?

And on top of it, there is no difference to the at risk people, unfortunate as that is an an unfortunate consequence of fate, if football goes ahead or not.  They are at the same degree of risk if the field grows over or if balls are snapped.  it doesn't seem to very just to make everyone intentionally suffer because a few people were dealt a bad hand.

Playing football has no impact on the fate of the at risk population.  They must protect themselves regardless.  Seems strange to me to then argue football shouldn't be played.

[jknezek]

It's going to be interesting for sure. Step one has to be the ability to get students back on campus. I have to admit, I'm pretty wary of dorms. They are just massive breeding grounds for viruses every year. Cleanliness in communal shower rooms and dining halls is also an issue. And yes, 18-24 year olds have gotten the corona virus and died or had lasting effects. Not near the same percentage. But it's there.

Step two will be making faculty feel safe. Average age for professors skews higher at many schools. What good is having the kids back on campus if you are missing a significant part of the staff?

Only then will collegiate sports be even a possibility. I suspect that, like everything else in this country, a lot of these decisions will be made regionally. Some areas of the country will have colleges open without a second thought. Other areas may still be shut down through the fall. You could have some schools decide colleges can open, but athletics are too much of a risk. I could see some schools allowing fans, and other schools playing in empty facilities. You could easily have some conferences play fall sports and some conferences not. You could also have some colleges within the conference choose not to participate this year.

I personally think all these options will occur to some degree in DIII. DI will be a whole different barrel of fish. I suspect in DI it will go by conference. Among the P5, the Big 10, ACC, and PAC-12 are in varying degrees of trouble. While the SEC and Big 12 will play at almost any cost. Don't ask about the G5. I'm not sure it's worth it to them to play if they can't pack the stadiums. Their tv contracts aren't that valuable and they will need the in-person revenue.

[miac952]

South Korea starts its professional baseball league this week without fans. With some of the most progressive testing and contact tracing in place of any country they have got new cases down to single digits on a daily basis.

Florida has been cited by MLB as a potential geographic cluster for Grapefuit based teams to play games. There cases are rising past 1,200 per day with a smaller population and less testing and contact tracing.

I'm not saying we should mirror South Korea by any means, but it shows how far we still are from advancing forward for "PRO" sporting events without fans, much less small college.

[OzJohnnie]

Significant sacrifices are being made either way. For the NFL, the economic benefit is significant, for DIII much less so. Risk is similar in each scenario.

A couple points, as long as we're having a good, civil discussion:

"Significant sacrifices are being made either way"

- In one way, lock everything down, everyone is making sacrifice.  In the other way, there is no sacrifice (the willing giving up of something, in this case free movement).  The vulnerable are vulnerable and have no choice.  No fault of their own, just a bad hand.  They need to protect themselves for quite a while until treatment settles and perhaps a vaccine is developed.  That's not tossing them to the wind, it's recognising the state of play.  And they aren't alone.  There's a difference between taking good precautions and bad precautions.

"For the NFL, the economic benefit is significant, for DIII much less so."

- The dollar amounts are certainly more in the NFL but I suspect the economic benefit for DIII is substantially larger.  The NFL doesn't need to worry about existence, just profit and loss.  No NFL team will cease to exist because of the CV lockdown.  Sports, as has been discussed, may be key to many colleges even surviving, in which case the economic benefit (along with the well being off all the people and communities which depend on the college network) is ultimate.  Less cash, infinitely more consequence.

"Risk is similar in either scenario."

- I agree.  And therefore there is no reason not to resume.  If the risk is the same whether play is on or not then the answer is pretty straight forward: play.

[formerd3db]

Oz:

You make some valid points. However, I am "sitting the fence" on this for now (re: playing or not playing).  I have to disagree with you slightly.  Only time will tell if the risk is the same and, at this current time, the risk is NOT the same.  Do you know anyone who has died from this virus?  This virus is NOT like influenza. I can tell you it is a horrible experience for those who get it and are symptomatic and/or have died from it (yes, both those who are older as well as younger, regardless if they have underlying predisposing comorbidities or not.  Until there is a vaccine developed, this will continue to be a very dangerous situation.  I certainly do not have the answers but, if/when the time comes for me to make a personal choice, I will likely be on the side of extreme caution, with the understanding that none of us are risk free, regardless of age. 

Thanks everyone for this civilized discussion.  As we can all see, the opinions are varied and "all over the place" just like it is in the medical field and political worlds right now.  Only time will be the determining factor as we see how this all eventually plays out.  I will say, however, that God did not intend for any of us to be stupid.     

[OzJohnnie]

It's going to be interesting for sure. Step one has to be the ability to get students back on campus. I have to admit, I'm pretty wary of dorms. They are just massive breeding grounds for viruses every year. Cleanliness in communal shower rooms and dining halls is also an issue. And yes, 18-24 year olds have gotten the corona virus and died or had lasting effects. Not near the same percentage. But it's there.

Undoubtedly there will be many people who don't want to take this risk.  Don't go to school in that case, correct?  Or choose a commuter school.  Or perhaps schools that have been overwhelmingly residential need to consider allowing commuter and off-campus living. But the near totality of people who have serious issues with this virus are old or carrying serious pre-conditions.  That's not the college student population.  And if it happens you are in that category, then have a good second think about the college experience you are looking for.

Regardless, the Minnesota Dept of Health website says that only 17% of the cases in the state have been people under 29, or just 649 people.  And the average age for fatal cases is 83, the youngest person a 44-year-old.  Were I considering sending my kid to school (which I am, three of them) that strikes me as a pretty reasonable risk, no different than normal life to them.

https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/situation.html#ageg1

Step two will be making faculty feel safe. Average age for professors skews higher at many schools. What good is having the kids back on campus if you are missing a significant part of the staff?

This is certainly a challenge.  Schools with younger staff who may be more willing to work in a classroom environment will have an advantage, not the normal university circumstance.

Only then will collegiate sports be even a possibility. I suspect that, like everything else in this country, a lot of these decisions will be made regionally. Some areas of the country will have colleges open without a second thought. Other areas may still be shut down through the fall. You could have some schools decide colleges can open, but athletics are too much of a risk. I could see some schools allowing fans, and other schools playing in empty facilities. You could easily have some conferences play fall sports and some conferences not. You could also have some colleges within the conference choose not to participate this year.

I think the point your observation misses here is that for many schools, maybe even most with the rapid expansion of sports-driven enrolment over the last 20 years, sport isn't an optional extra but a fundamental component of financial viability.  Sports driven enrolments are essential for many school budgets and schools cannot operate without them.  The order of business you put forward, school first and sports second, is not the order that many institutions must consider for financial viability.

I personally think all these options will occur to some degree in DIII. DI will be a whole different barrel of fish. I suspect in DI it will go by conference. Among the P5, the Big 10, ACC, and PAC-12 are in varying degrees of trouble. While the SEC and Big 12 will play at almost any cost. Don't ask about the G5. I'm not sure it's worth it to them to play if they can't pack the stadiums. Their tv contracts aren't that valuable and they will need the in-person revenue.

Oddly, I think that DII sports will be far the easiest to go ahead.  Particularly for a conference like the MIAC where other than the Johnnie football program I would be surprised if the rest of the programs take in enough receipts to cover the weekly laundry bill.  Even more so with other sports.  I would not be surprised to find that 98% of the MIAC's sports "revenue" is tuition.  Conference play can easily go ahead.  Cheap, easy day trips are the order of business with only a few long haul trips requiring an overnight stay.

Anyways, we'll find out soon, but I reckon the odds are much better than 50/50 that we'll see play this fall.  People, including schools, are running out of money and they have to get back out there earning.

[jknezek]

I think the point your observation misses here is that for many schools, maybe even most with the rapid expansion of sports-driven enrolment over the last 20 years, sport isn't an optional extra but a fundamental component of financial viability.  Sports driven enrolments are essential for many school budgets and schools cannot operate without them.  The order of business you put forward, school first and sports second, is not the order that many institutions must consider for financial viability.

I think you are putting way too much effort into this part. We lost part of a winter season and all of spring, but it seems like the fall is the big tipping point for athletics. Losing a single fall is as passable for most DIII institutions as having lost a spring.

I just think we have an impasse in how we think about things. You think this is an issue of personal risk. I see this as societal risk because a person taking risk can and will have an effect on society. It's like drunk driving. Yes, it's your risk to drive drunk, but when you plow into a bystander your personal risk just effected someone else. It's your risk to play football, when you then visit the grocery store and pass the virus along to someone else, it becomes societal risk.

We don't ban alcohol, but we do make consequences for personal risk spilling over into society. If we want to frame this virus as personal risk, allowing football or high risk gatherings, then we need to make consequences for if the personal risk passes into society. Right now, because the consequence isn't there, people don't value the risk appropriately.

[hazzben]

The issue is also that no fall on campus classes means lost room + board. For enrollment driven budgets, that's a brutal hit. Major factors in recruitment are often quality of campus experience & extra curricular activities (sports being the top of that list by a sig margin).

The loss of Winter and Spring seasons came out of nowhere, with students already enrolled and on campus. There was no ability to plan and react with forethought. If things on campus are canceled in the fall, there will have been 5-6 months for students to take stock. Whether that's incoming first year students choosing to do a gap year. Or fall athletes, not wanting to pay and extend their tuition paying semesters if no sports are happening.

It's gonna be interesting, and I'll be the first to admit, I am only noting problems and not proposing any solutions. 

[57Johnnie]

Maybe once a University or a few start announcing that they will have on campus, in person instruction this fall that the competition for students will begin a domino effect of similar announcements.

Not very happy news for BDB but I think many other D III schools will be facing this:
In today's Chippewa paper: Stout furloughed 69 staff and faculty with more to come. There was not further info of what kinds of people they were. Can't express how bad I feel about this.

[miac952]

One more thing to consider:

When this hits a team, and it definitely will, that team will be out of competition for many weeks. Given what we have seen with the meat processing plants and the choir in Seattle and countless other examples is that this spreads like wildfire in people that share close space. A football team on the field, in the locker room, and in the dorms is a textbook situation for that to happen. And while those players aren't at risk of hospitalization from the illness, many will still have severe symptoms over a 2-3 week period. Look at how staph spreads with a wrestling team or meningitis in dorms. The ease of transmission of this is a major challenge.

Maybe testing is so ubiquitous that every teams travel roster can get tested on Friday's before games?? I would guess DIII football is extremely low on the list for asymptomatic testing, but that would at least significantly reduce risk of exposure from team to team and the bus drivers, referees, etc.

[formerd3db]

One more thing to consider:

When this hits a team, and it definitely will, that team will be out of competition for many weeks. Given what we have seen with the meat processing plants and the choir in Seattle and countless other examples is that this spreads like wildfire in people that share close space. A football team on the field, in the locker room, and in the dorms is a textbook situation for that to happen. And while those players aren't at risk of hospitalization from the illness, many will still have severe symptoms over a 2-3 week period. Look at how staph spreads with a wrestling team or meningitis in dorms. The ease of transmission of this is a major challenge.

Maybe testing is so ubiquitous that every teams travel roster can get tested on Friday's before games?? I would guess DIII football is extremely low on the list for asymptomatic testing, but that would at least significantly reduce risk of exposure from team to team and the bus drivers, referees, etc.

Excellent points, miac952.  And as I mentioned, this coronavirus is much worse than influenza or staph regardless of the age group it hits (with the exception of children, apparently-at least from the most current info/data we have.) Also, you are, of course, regarding your etc., you are including all the support staff, equipment managers, statisticians, athletic training staff, and cheerleaders.  

[sjusection105]

A question for the Drs & scientists regarding a vaccine. Is there a vaccine for SARS or MERS? I don't believe so, but I'm not positive. If there isn't a vaccine for these upper respiratory virus driven diseases, what makes us think we (any medical team in the world) will find an effective vaccine for COVID-19?

[Texas Ole]

A question for the Drs & scientists regarding a vaccine. Is there a vaccine for SARS or MERS? I don't believe so, but I'm not positive. If there isn't a vaccine for these upper respiratory virus driven diseases, what makes us think we (any medical team in the world) will find an effective vaccine for COVID-19?

What makes you think people will actually get the vaccine even if it were made mandatory?  We have a vaccine for the flu yet many don't get it.  More people are opting out of other vaccines that used to be standard.  We are seeing other diseases return that were thought to be eradicated.  There were about 5 school districts and several parochial schools in the DFW area this year that had to shut down due outbreaks of the flu.  I was talking with a teacher friend while out for a ride, and neither one of us could think of a time when schools were shut down like that for the flu.  It has me wondering if the virus has been around for longer than originally thought.