Covid Impacts on Upcoming Season

[Gregory Sager]

Jay and WUPHF, my guess is that Wash U and Chicago are going to contact the CCIW and/or the MWC and try to fill out their schedules for men's and women's soccer, men's and women's XC, and for women's volleyball by attaching to one league or the other on a temporary basis. (I doubt that the invitation would extend to formally taking part in the standings and conference tournaments and possibly taking the AQ, but who knows?) Given that the various teams in both of those leagues are going to have to alter their schedules for those sports, anyway, this might be feasible.

My guess is neither of those schools are going to play. Neither need to and with peer schools like CMU and now hearing Case about to let go of the season, it wouldn't surprise me to see these fall away also. I truly believe that the vast majority of schools that aren't afraid of losing significant student athlete dollars won't play.

I hope that my guess is right and yours is wrong. But I certainly wouldn't put any money on it. As you said, Chicago and Wash U don't need to play sports.

[jaybird44]

But I need to broadcast WashU sports...for my sanity...

[Gregory Sager]

I hear you loud and clear, Jay. No games to broadcast helped make this spring miserable for me, too.

[Stryker]

LL has posted a statement on their website. League games plus two out of league games and a playoff and championship. First game Sept 26. There may be one other LL school on the fence with RPI but every other school is apparently intending to participate pending approval from NY and circumstances as they unfold beyond their control.

The only other school on the fence  for Liberty League is Union.

[WUPHF]

Again... notice that the decisions are high-endowment schools which are suspending sports. I just don't think this is going to be a huge wave in general ... not at this time.

You do not need to start with the again because it makes it seem like you think you have some unique insight here.  Everyone understands that wealthy institutions are going to move more quickly on the matter. 

And it is not just a matter of money.

Amherst and Williams know that an outbreak on the soccer team is national news whereas an outbreak at the MCLA is barely making the Boston Globe.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Jay and WUPHF, my guess is that Wash U and Chicago are going to contact the CCIW and/or the MWC and try to fill out their schedules for men's and women's soccer, men's and women's XC, and for women's volleyball by attaching to one league or the other on a temporary basis. (I doubt that the invitation would extend to formally taking part in the standings and conference tournaments and possibly taking the AQ, but who knows?) Given that the various teams in both of those leagues are going to have to alter their schedules for those sports, anyway, this might be feasible.

My guess is neither of those schools are going to play. Neither need to and with peer schools like CMU and now hearing Case about to let go of the season, it wouldn't surprise me to see these fall away also. I truly believe that the vast majority of schools that aren't afraid of losing significant student athlete dollars won't play.

I hope that my guess is right and yours is wrong. But I certainly wouldn't put any money on it. As you said, Chicago and Wash U don't need to play sports.

From what I was told by someone associated with UChicago today ... they are pushing forward at this time.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Again... notice that the decisions are high-endowment schools which are suspending sports. I just don't think this is going to be a huge wave in general ... not at this time.

You do not need to start with the again because it makes it seem like you think you have some unique insight here.  Everyone understands that wealthy institutions are going to move more quickly on the matter. 

And it is not just a matter of money.

Amherst and Williams know that an outbreak on the soccer team is national news whereas an outbreak at the MCLA is barely making the Boston Globe.

I have been having conversations about this every day for more than a month ... believe it or not, not everyone thinks about the endowments. Furthermore, some people think particular schools are wealthy and they aren't. I can think of a few in the Centennial many think have large endowments and then realize they are less than $300m.

I also just came across someone in the basketball boards who posted the Amherst coach hiring ... weeks after it was a "popular" topic in the boards. Not everyone is as keyed in or paying attention ... so, I'm repeating a talking point because I think it is worth making sure people understand.

In DIII we have had about 25 schools announce no sports in the fall ... out of 440(ish). That isn't a large number in the grand scheme of things. Could it change? Yep. Will it? No idea.

[PaulNewman]

Do you think colleges should base whether they play or not on whether they have a high or low endowment?

Is there any data on how much not playing will impact how many students return, assuming those schools are endorsing most or all students returning?  I assume a certain percentage of students will not return in the Fall regardless.  How much is athletics additive to that?

If you were referring to me, every CC school I mentioned has an endowment over 300 million.  The one I almost mentioned but didn't is Muhlenberg which as of 2019 comes in just under 300 mill at 289 million.  I confess I didn't check all of them ahead of posting but I was making an overall point about how the ones I mentioned might potentially impact one another.

[NEPAFAN]

I don't see any fall sports across the board in the fall, I'm sorry to say.  It is 8 July and the cancellations are already pouring in.

[Gregory Sager]

Jay and WUPHF, my guess is that Wash U and Chicago are going to contact the CCIW and/or the MWC and try to fill out their schedules for men's and women's soccer, men's and women's XC, and for women's volleyball by attaching to one league or the other on a temporary basis. (I doubt that the invitation would extend to formally taking part in the standings and conference tournaments and possibly taking the AQ, but who knows?) Given that the various teams in both of those leagues are going to have to alter their schedules for those sports, anyway, this might be feasible.

My guess is neither of those schools are going to play. Neither need to and with peer schools like CMU and now hearing Case about to let go of the season, it wouldn't surprise me to see these fall away also. I truly believe that the vast majority of schools that aren't afraid of losing significant student athlete dollars won't play.

I hope that my guess is right and yours is wrong. But I certainly wouldn't put any money on it. As you said, Chicago and Wash U don't need to play sports.

From what I was told by someone associated with UChicago today ... they are pushing forward at this time.

That's great news. And, while each institution makes decisions for itself based upon its own needs and situation, it makes me hopeful that Wash U will act in tandem with its archrival and traveling partner.

[PaulNewman]

I don't see any fall sports across the board in the fall, I'm sorry to say.  It is 8 July and the cancellations are already pouring in.

Yep....the divergence in perspectives is pretty stunning to me.

This very week we have two of the biggest NCAA D1 powerhouses -- Ohio State and UNC-Chapel Hill -- announcing at least temporary suspensions of all athletic programs due to outbreaks within the programs (at least 37 + cases at UNC I believe).  Now of course those setbacks may indeed be temporary, but we've also seen Clemson, Alabama and I think Texas have issues.  The Dallas MLS team is out.  At least one WNBA team is out.  The viability of doing a NBA season inside of a bubble at Disney World is still an open question. 

I know, I know... D3 athletics supposedly has little to nothing to do with D1 athletics and professional leagues, but D3 sports aren't divorced from the world either and they don't have some special sauce that the others don't.  If anything, they have less resources.  I'm sure all of the D3 schools that have already opted out desperately wanted to go forward and play.  There is no school regardless of wealth that isn't going to feel broken without official athletics.  Wanting and even still planning to go ahead are not a lot to hang one's hat on at this point.

From a strategic point of view I'm not sure I'm following the proposed starts in very late September.  I would have thought they would have moved things UP to attempt to get a season in.  Seems like the proposed late starts allows schools cover if needed to say we planned to play and announced that in good faith if "conditions on the ground" result in a reversal.  When are we supposed to know if there is a plan to go forward with a NCAA D3 tournament?

[jknezek]

I still think this will be a very individual, school by school, conference by conference type thing. I expect at least half of DIII schools to try and have sports. They can't afford not to. They'll get the students back on campus, make sure they are enrolled, get the money, and attempt practices and keep a schedule. Then if cases start popping up in the players themselves or opponents they will cancel. And if the cases don't pop up, or go unknown, they will attempt to play.

To be clear, I'm not calling this a scam, I'm calling this an attempt to have a season, knowing that the threshold for failure is low, but the attempt needs to be made to make sure the enrollment dollars come in.

I will be extremely surprised if we have any kind of post-season for any sport this fall.

[PaulNewman]

I still think this will be a very individual, school by school, conference by conference type thing. I expect at least half of DIII schools to try and have sports. They can't afford not to. They'll get the students back on campus, make sure they are enrolled, get the money, and attempt practices and keep a schedule. Then if cases start popping up in the players themselves or opponents they will cancel. And if the cases don't pop up, or go unknown, they will attempt to play.

To be clear, I'm not calling this a scam, I'm calling this an attempt to have a season, knowing that the threshold for failure is low, but the attempt needs to be made to make sure the enrollment dollars come in.

I will be extremely surprised if we have any kind of post-season for any sport this fall.

Fair enough.  I wouldn't call it a scam either, but assuming you are right I think you hit the nail on the head with the low threshold for failure.

So you've described the institutional side of things, again based almost entirely on money.

From a player and/or family perspective -- assuming that going back to school and giving out those enrollment dollars IS in fact dependent on the school expressing the intent to have some kind of season -- at what point for some will having a season not look and feel enough like having a "real" season to go back?  Is a 6-10 game season with no NCAA tourney enough?  Maybe.  I suppose this is where FW's point about "getting to be with your brothers" comes into play.  I think personally I would either decide to return to school with or without a season OR hold off and keep my year of eligibility.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Do you think colleges should base whether they play or not on whether they have a high or low endowment?

Is there any data on how much not playing will impact how many students return, assuming those schools are endorsing most or all students returning?  I assume a certain percentage of students will not return in the Fall regardless.  How much is athletics additive to that?

If you were referring to me, every CC school I mentioned has an endowment over 300 million.  The one I almost mentioned but didn't is Muhlenberg which as of 2019 comes in just under 300 mill at 289 million.  I confess I didn't check all of them ahead of posting but I was making an overall point about how the ones I mentioned might potentially impact one another.

Absolutely! Go through the list of schools that have called off fall sports (fully, skip the Centennial for now) or not allowing students on campus and you will see a common thread.

Furthermore, I have talked to institutions who don't have high endowments and their mentality is different. They need to survive this and not having students on campus or not have athletics (which is more about the energy and atmosphere on many campuses than just bodies and enrollment) could push the financial limits colleges are already facing from the spring decisions into a hole they can't recover from. Institutions are already closing and will continue to close from this pandemic. The pendulum was already swinging in the wrong direction for high-education and a number of institutions prior to COVID-19, but that pendulum has been shoved in that direction now. Schools with low endowments don't have the financial fall back to rely on as those with significantly higher endowments.

Furthermore as one AD told me, there are lawsuits to worry about and those with with higher endowments could be worried that their financial security could be a target (whether that is accurate or not; one article about NCAA lawsuits per name and likeness showed that D1's thinking to get rid of it's reserve funds because they were worried the money would be targeted by lawyers proved to be a foolish idea for many reasons including lawyers who point out the reserve funds, i.e. endowments, are not something they consider when deciding on lawsuits). Some schools have tort limits for payouts thanks to being state institutions. Others do not have those limits and may worry if something goes wrong if they can handle the hit of those lawsuits.

And if you need more examples of where endowments plays a role, look at the Centennial and NESCAC. While the Centennial has made a decision on the fall, it is NOT the same decision Swarthmore and Haverford have made and Bryn Mawr will make. I know schools in the Centennial who plan to have students on campus and have fall sports if they can possibly pull it off (after a decision in late September). And the NESCAC is split. There are some who have announced they are shutting down sports. There are others who have not and are trying to have sports.

Per "having a season" that Paul just posted about ... having 6-10 games is better than nothing would have been the perspective I would have had as an athlete. At least I am playing.

The minimum to be considered for the post-season, which right now is the furthest from my mind and likely many others, is about half the season max. Changed for this season.

[jknezek]

I still think this will be a very individual, school by school, conference by conference type thing. I expect at least half of DIII schools to try and have sports. They can't afford not to. They'll get the students back on campus, make sure they are enrolled, get the money, and attempt practices and keep a schedule. Then if cases start popping up in the players themselves or opponents they will cancel. And if the cases don't pop up, or go unknown, they will attempt to play.

To be clear, I'm not calling this a scam, I'm calling this an attempt to have a season, knowing that the threshold for failure is low, but the attempt needs to be made to make sure the enrollment dollars come in.

I will be extremely surprised if we have any kind of post-season for any sport this fall.

Fair enough.  I wouldn't call it a scam either, but assuming you are right I think you hit the nail on the head with the low threshold for failure.

So you've described the institutional side of things, again based almost entirely on money.

From a player and/or family perspective -- assuming that going back to school and giving out those enrollment dollars IS in fact dependent on the school expressing the intent to have some kind of season -- at what point for some will having a season not look and feel enough like having a "real" season to go back?  Is a 6-10 game season with no NCAA tourney enough?  Maybe.  I suppose this is where FW's point about "getting to be with your brothers" comes into play.  I think personally I would either decide to return to school with or without a season OR hold off and keep my year of eligibility.

Yeah. I have no idea. I don't have kids in that age group. Mine are 10, 8 and 8 and we are back doing our sole sport of taekwondo, though we are not participating in the summer tournament next week or the Alabama State Games later this month. Both areas we would normally compete.

I would not be particularly upset about an 18-22 year old playing sports this fall as a parent, though I would be skeptical of having them come home at Thanksgiving and might pay for a hotel quarantine for them for a week or two after the semester ends if I was in a at-risk age group.

For me, the reason schools are having issues is the faculty and staff risk, not so much the student risk (though obviously there have been some serious cases in younger people). We will see how it turns out, but I do believe trying to have a season is mostly about enrollment dollars for D3 schools, and a little about wanting athletes to have the most typical season possible.