Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Joe Bryant

6.30.20 Your Guess On Chances The NFL Gets In 10 Regular Season Games

"What percent chance do you think it is that NFL will get at least 10 regular season games in?"  

275 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Weird that 0% and 100%  have many more votes than 10% and 90%.  Lots of unwarranted confidence in here. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, rockaction said:

The most interesting thing is the creeping cynicism about the men responsible for the enormous wealth creation required to be an NFL owner or, on the other hand, the willingness of the players to undergo medical hardship and risk to play for dollars. It's sort of a telling indictment that people believe that they'll put everyone's health in jeopardy for money purposes.

 

oh I absolutely believe that....provided that they have plausible deniability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SeniorVBDStudent said:

oh I absolutely believe that....provided that they have plausible deniability.

That's just disheartening. It's like a different world than the one I inhabit, where the only things I have are the people close to me and my own physical well-being, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted 30%.  I don't think it should be even that high, but I think the league will try to get the season in even if it means no fans.  My guess is there will be teams that are hard hit and the league will have to either pause or cancel the season.  It sucks, but these players and coaches lives are more important plus they have family to think about.  It's becoming quite obvious the problem is only getting worse and many people are being to lax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/30/2020 at 4:29 PM, Joe Bryant said:

Simple question and I'll likely do a few of these over the summer for different snapshots in time.

"What percent chance do you think it is that NFL will get at least 10 regular season games in?"

If you're brave, post your answer in a comment and why you think it. 

This should be very simple.  Should is the key word. 

The bottom line is that you are a member of a trusted bubble and you are being paid handsomely to stay in that bubble.  We should all be doing this if we can, for the sake of each other. 

Many of us with desk jobs are making the same sacrifice for much less compensation.  We just get to keep our jobs (hopefully) but anything social is dead for now and we can barely even leave the house... but we don't need to.  We are doing it to protect the most vulnerable people in our society, including those close to us. 

The NFLs version of work from home is that we cannot work from home, so everyone who opts into this bubble needs to commit and do their part of staying isolated.  Of course a group this large can't be trusted, so at least daily testing makes sense too.  The costs of excessive testing will be negligible compared to the costs of not playing.  Also, here are your league issued N95s.  You are required to wear it anytime you interact with anyone outside the bubble, which should only be done sparingly and when necessary. 

This should be simple.  The steps to achieve it are clear.  Based on how we have handled this event to this point, we unfortunately lack the discipline and personal responsibility as a society to make it happen. 

 

I think that if we can set up a good system of handling an outbreak the chances are 80 percent.  If we keep up what we are doing now, 20 percent. 

To me, not practicing coronavirus countermeasures is like drunk driving.  It's a selfish thing to do for your own convenience.  Sure, most of the time it might be fine in that there are no consequences, but you're putting yourself and others at unnecessary risk.  If something does go wrong, it could be fatal for you or others.  That's why we don't allow it as a society.  

Edited by kittenmittens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the NFL protocols released today were encouraging mainly due to:

1. Confirmation of what I expected in that close contact with someone who tests positive won't automatically mean a self quarantine period. A player will need to test negative if they have close contact but this should put to bed any discussion about quarantining teams, position groups or  contact tracing without a positive test leading to players needing to be held out.

2.  Unexpected good news in that it's not some kind of automatic 14 day quarantine period for someone who tests positive. Based on what I'm looking at can be as fast as 6 days if someone tests positive but is non-symptomatic, will need to be at least 10 days if positive test and symptomatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The thing is, can't people spread before they test positive? 
If a player exposed to a positive case goes back to the club and tests negative for two days and then positive, that seems like an issue.

Edited by Mystery Achiever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mystery Achiever said:

The thing is, can't people spread before they test positive? 
If a player exposed to a positive case goes back to the club and tests negative for two days and then positive, that seems like an issue.

Yes & also some have it, but never have any symptoms & they too can spread it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went 40% and really have no good justification for going that high.  

I think there is a directly inversely proportional relationship between how much an entity attempts to brute force going back to normal and the success that results and, in this case, the NFL has basically tried to bully ball this issue like they are the only ones in the world that can do this while the rest of the world has been forced to relent. 

When you consider the periphreal logistics that accompany the NFL, I don't know how they do this.  Let's say a player has an injury and needs to go to the Hospital. The bubble is broken right there for the player and a few staff and his family unless the NFL is basically going to have a mobile MASH unit capable of covering everything and anything. Introduction by those people to the hospital would, I think , automatically put that player out of action for 14-21 days.  That's just a small example of the myriad of things that could compromise the bubble.  

If they don't attempt to have a bubble, I just have zero faith that ALL players and ALL their family and ALL coaches, officials, vendors, security that is hired locally to do the event (and then goes back to their regular job in the public), etc, etc can maintain on an ongoing basis for 6-7 months. I think it will be hard to do.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

90 to 100% confident that all 16 games and a complete playoff schedule will happen

I really believe this will happen

I live in the northeast - I have seen what the rest of the country if going through now

I believe the numbers in a majority of the country will be down by the time the season starts.  

I believe they can play safely during the game - the key is what happens off the field between games

The NFL is a huge business,  I believe they will do everything possible to have a season.  That doesn't mean that there won't be positive cases during the season but I think they are determined to have this season.  I don't think there will be fans and the players and staff will need to significantly isolate when they are not playing / practicing

Most of the baseball and basketball players want to play.  NFL careers are typically much short.  I don't think most players will want to miss out on the season

This will obviously be a unique season unlike anything we have ever seen before, but at this point in time I a pretty confident there will be a season

 

 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Soaring Eagle said:

90 to 100% confident that all 16 games and a complete playoff schedule will happen

I really believe this will happen

I live in the northeast - I have seen what the rest of the country if going through now

I believe the numbers in a majority of the country will be down by the time the season starts.  

I believe they can play safely during the game - the key is what happens off the field between games

The NFL is a huge business,  I believe they will do everything possible to have a season.  That doesn't mean that there won't be positive cases during the season but I think they are determined to have this season.  I don't think there will be fans and the players and staff will need to significantly isolate when they are not playing / practicing

Most of the baseball and basketball players want to play.  NFL careers are typically much short.  I don't think most players will want to miss out on the season

This will obviously be a unique season unlike anything we have ever seen before, but at this point in time I a pretty confident there will be a season

 

 

Yeah but when it got bad where you are they shut down for weeks and it got better. That won't likely happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

San Diego is trending in the wrong direction. Restaurants are closing the dining areas again as of today by Gov. Newsom's order. Seems like the NFL could be the least of our worries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted zero. 

With record numbers of daily new cases spiking in the last 3-4 weeks in the US, and such wide variance in approaches without any strong central federal leadership, with wearing masks and other protective measures (even the rejection of science) becoming a political litmus test instead of being universally adopted to stem the tide, I think we're going to see continued elevated new cases for months.

For me, I don't see this changing meaningfully through the fall, where it will be too late.

As painful as it seems, I really don't think ANY sports should resume -- NFL, NHL, NBA, etc. I get that people want and need sports as a distraction. But that's all it is, where the focus should be on flattening the curve with combined and coordinated federal and state action.

As I witness what's going on all around me and all across the country, I'm really saddened by the lack of reality -- people seem to have their heads in the sand after 4 months of this crisis, which is unbelievable to me. And as the more I think about that reality, the more I think the NFL will try to force things to happen -- I believe that the league can easily survive a skip-year given the money that's involved, but I don't think the league's owners will have an appetite to forego a year. Too much money is involved to have them try to recoup some loss. Greed supersedes all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stompin' Tom Connors said:

I voted zero. 

With record numbers of daily new cases spiking in the last 3-4 weeks in the US, and such wide variance in approaches without any strong central federal leadership, with wearing masks and other protective measures (even the rejection of science) becoming a political litmus test instead of being universally adopted to stem the tide, I think we're going to see continued elevated new cases for months.

For me, I don't see this changing meaningfully through the fall, where it will be too late.

As painful as it seems, I really don't think ANY sports should resume -- NFL, NHL, NBA, etc. I get that people want and need sports as a distraction. But that's all it is, where the focus should be on flattening the curve with combined and coordinated federal and state action.

As I witness what's going on all around me and all across the country, I'm really saddened by the lack of reality -- people seem to have their heads in the sand after 4 months of this crisis, which is unbelievable to me. And as the more I think about that reality, the more I think the NFL will try to force things to happen -- I believe that the league can easily survive a skip-year given the money that's involved, but I don't think the league's owners will have an appetite to forego a year. Too much money is involved to have them try to recoup some loss. Greed supersedes all.

So wait, did you just say heads or tails, Tom? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, rockaction said:

So wait, did you just say heads or tails, Tom? 

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I voted zero as I thought a continued crisis with no signs of flattening in sight yet would a forcing function that cuts the season off well before they can feasibly play 10 games. Or that the NFL and NFLPA, seeing no abatement in the curve, simply call the season entirely if only to keep players safe.

The more I thought about it, the more I realize that my view isn't likely shared by the NFL. Maybe not even by the NFLPA, as I imagine the players won't want to lose a season of salary (and I don't think the owners are going to simply pay without play).

I think we still don't get to 10 games because of everything that's going on. But the probability of that happening is different from my initial vote as I can totally see the NFL trying to force it to happen regardless.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BoltNlava said:

San Diego is trending in the wrong direction. Restaurants are closing the dining areas again as of today by Gov. Newsom's order. Seems like the NFL could be the least of our worries.

Wasn't that already the case the past couple of seasons?  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2020 at 8:33 PM, rockaction said:

The most interesting thing is the creeping cynicism about the men responsible for the enormous wealth creation required to be an NFL owner or, on the other hand, the willingness of the players to undergo medical hardship and risk to play for dollars. It's sort of a telling indictment that people believe that they'll put everyone's health in jeopardy for money purposes.

 

Isn't this the definition of the NFL already?  Players play for big sums of money at a huge risk to their health regardless of the virus situation.  In their eyes (20 somethings at the peak of health) the virus is probably much less of a risk than just playing in general...……...and they already do that

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome.  My vote (60%) is the least voted on......not even in double digit votes yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gally said:

Isn't this the definition of the NFL already?  Players play for big sums of money at a huge risk to their health regardless of the virus situation.  In their eyes (20 somethings at the peak of health) the virus is probably much less of a risk than just playing in general...……...and they already do that

It's a weird damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

NFL careers are much shorter on average compared with all other pro sports. Players need to maximize earnings in the 3 or so years they will have in the league, and putting their bodies in harms way isn't just part of the sport, it's part of how they will prove -- and increase -- their worth.

At the same time, you have had amazing (and long overdue) progress on issues such as CTE and concussions and the long-lasting impact it has on players, with more focus on player safety.

You would think that given this angle of player safety, everyone in the league --  from owners down to players -- would see the dangers of running a season in the midst of this pandemic in one of the worst-hit countries, where they have arguably been the worst at addressing it, and choose to protect the players and league in the long run. Even putting players in a bubble and playing to empty stadiums doesn't remove all the risk of 4K people working and playing together with sweat and spit flying. 

But the realist in me thinks that money is the more important issue to those concerned -- owners don't want to lose out on revenue even for a year, and players don't want to burn a third of their career not playing and not having the same chance to prove themselves to earn more.

I think that aspect -- players already putting health at risk and seeing this as no different and wanting to secure their livelihood, and owners only caring about their own bottom line and wanting to protect any loss -- wins out. 

It shouldn't, in my mind, but it's not my choice to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stompin' Tom Connors said:

It's a weird damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

NFL careers are much shorter on average compared with all other pro sports. Players need to maximize earnings in the 3 or so years they will have in the league, and putting their bodies in harms way isn't just part of the sport, it's part of how they will prove -- and increase -- their worth.

At the same time, you have had amazing (and long overdue) progress on issues such as CTE and concussions and the long-lasting impact it has on players, with more focus on player safety.

You would think that given this angle of player safety, everyone in the league --  from owners down to players -- would see the dangers of running a season in the midst of this pandemic in one of the worst-hit countries, where they have arguably been the worst at addressing it, and choose to protect the players and league in the long run. Even putting players in a bubble and playing to empty stadiums doesn't remove all the risk of 4K people working and playing together with sweat and spit flying. 

But the realist in me thinks that money is the more important issue to those concerned -- owners don't want to lose out on revenue even for a year, and players don't want to burn a third of their career not playing and not having the same chance to prove themselves to earn more.

I think that aspect -- players already putting health at risk and seeing this as no different and wanting to secure their livelihood, and owners only caring about their own bottom line and wanting to protect any loss -- wins out. 

It shouldn't, in my mind, but it's not my choice to make.

I would think if you put 4000 people in a bubble after testing and confirming everyone was virus free it wouldn't matter if they were playing or working together - even with spit flying.   All the risk would be removed - provided nobody ever left the bubble. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said 80, but it's just a guess based on money driving it, and the death rate being so low......I don't see full stadiums though......so we're prolly going to move forward with empty stadiums, which seems really strange, but it's better than nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Gally said:

I would think if you put 4000 people in a bubble after testing and confirming everyone was virus free it wouldn't matter if they were playing or working together - even with spit flying.   All the risk would be removed - provided nobody ever left the bubble. 

The issue the NBA is finding is that even if you pack all the players in a bubble and intend to keep them there for months, there would be plenty of non-bubble people coming and going. From what I have seen, family members, workers at the hotel / restaurants / venues, security people, media, maintenance, service providers, IT folks, vendors, suppliers, etc. would be granted access to come and go. It would be difficult to force anyone that came in to have to stay for weeks at a time and enforce rules on people that were not employed by the league.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Manster said:

I said 80, but it's just a guess based on money driving it, and the death rate being so low......I don't see full stadiums though......so we're prolly going to move forward with empty stadiums, which seems really strange, but it's better than nothing.

The issue in having no fans present is the huge loss of revenue . . . tickets, parking, concessions, memorabilia, fewer (or no) preseason games, etc. There were articles out months ago calculating the projected losses per team and IIRC the range was like $70-100M per team. Of course, the problem with that is that the salary cap is based on a percentage of revenue, and without changing the formula or renegotiating with the player's union, the salary cap next year would be slated to fall by that amount. That would put a huge strain on teams trying to field a team if their salary cap was cut by 25-50%. I expect at some point this will rear its ugly head and the same issues that plagued MLB getting started again (who gets paid and how much) may impact the NFL at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anarchy99 said:

The issue in having no fans present is the huge loss of revenue . . . tickets, parking, concessions, memorabilia, fewer (or no) preseason games, etc. There were articles out months ago calculating the projected losses per team and IIRC the range was like $70-100M per team. Of course, the problem with that is that the salary cap is based on a percentage of revenue, and without changing the formula or renegotiating with the player's union, the salary cap next year would be slated to fall by that amount. That would put a huge strain on teams trying to field a team if their salary cap was cut by 25-50%. I expect at some point this will rear its ugly head and the same issues that plagued MLB getting started again (who gets paid and how much) may impact the NFL at some point.

Everyone is just going to have absorb the loss.  Or just call it all off.  Unless somehow this thing magically peters out, say in Novemberish......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

The issue the NBA is finding is that even if you pack all the players in a bubble and intend to keep them there for months, there would be plenty of non-bubble people coming and going. From what I have seen, family members, workers at the hotel / restaurants / venues, security people, media, maintenance, service providers, IT folks, vendors, suppliers, etc. would be granted access to come and go. It would be difficult to force anyone that came in to have to stay for weeks at a time and enforce rules on people that were not employed by the league.

But that is the rub.  If you want access you cannot come and go.  You must test clean and then stay for the duration (or once you leave you are gone for good).  Kind of like going to a game now.  There is no re-entry.  You come in and are there for the duration.  Once you leave you are gone for good. 

 

It is a very simple solution (especially for something like the NBA that can play on the same court for 5 or 6 games a day). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gally said:

But that is the rub.  If you want access you cannot come and go.  You must test clean and then stay for the duration (or once you leave you are gone for good).  Kind of like going to a game now.  There is no re-entry.  You come in and are there for the duration.  Once you leave you are gone for good. 

 

It is a very simple solution (especially for something like the NBA that can play on the same court for 5 or 6 games a day). 

The issue isn't sequestering all the players, coaches, and staff . . . it's everyone else that would be supporting a league in a bubble. Chefs, maids, front desk people, security, medical staff, suppliers, etc. How on earth could you possibly force them to stay in a bubble for 6+ months? They have their own lives outside of being trapped somewhere by a league. They would have to bribe them with 6 figure bonuses to get them to stay locked up. The costs in having a bubble would be astronomical (and the NFL has pretty much shot down the bubble strategy several times already). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, they're pretty set on no bubble. How it works other than that is a purely hypothetical debate. Heck, any speculation is purely hypothetical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

The issue isn't sequestering all the players, coaches, and staff . . . it's everyone else that would be supporting a league in a bubble. Chefs, maids, front desk people, security, medical staff, suppliers, etc. How on earth could you possibly force them to stay in a bubble for 6+ months? They have their own lives outside of being trapped somewhere by a league. They would have to bribe them with 6 figure bonuses to get them to stay locked up. The costs in having a bubble would be astronomical (and the NFL has pretty much shot down the bubble strategy several times already). 

I would think you could find plenty of people in those industries willing to be "trapped" in a bubble with all of the NBA teams for 6 months while getting paid their usual wages.  I am sure it would include room and board so that is kind of a bonus.  They get to see all the games and I am sure there would be mingling time with the players because what else would they be doing. 

 

It just seems like the best possible solution and I don't see that it would be that much more expensive than doing what they are trying to do now and it would be much safer. 

 

I understand them (NBA) not wanting to do it that way and there would still be a ton of logistics that would need to happen but I don't think the salaries of the workers "stuck" in the bubble would be that big of deal in the grand scheme of things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100%. 10 games is a critical number to owners. They'll get at least this many games in, no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ann Killion is one of the best critical writers in sports. Here's her article on baseball's current status:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/annkillion/article/If-MLB-can-t-handle-coronavirus-tests-how-are-15389365.php

Quote

Two days into the restart of Major League Baseball’s “season,” the system was already breaking down.

Teams had to cancel or postpone workouts. Confusion reigned. Players were angry. General managers’ and managers’ heads were about to explode.

The issue? Testing for the coronavirus. In other words, the most important issue.

...

Baseball’s testing isn’t working right from the opening bell. The tests for A’s position players from Friday were still sitting in Oakland on Sunday night, waiting to be shipped to Utah. That meant no results would be completed until Monday afternoon at the earliest. Which meant the A’s had yet to complete a full team workout. The A’s finally got results back and were able to take the field Monday evening.

A’s general manager David Forst had sent a text message to team employees detailing the breakdown and describing himself as “frustrated and pissed.”

...

After canceling a team workout, Nationals general manager Mike Rizzo also expressed frustration, saying, “We cannot have our players and staff work at risk. ... We will not sacrifice the health and safety of our players, staff and their family.”

The 113-page MLB Operations Manual calls for players and on-field personnel to be tested every other day. But players around the league were saying they hadn’t received results from the first tests, while undergoing second tests. Which means that the next batch also likely will be delayed. 

How will this work when players are supposed to be on the road, in and out of hotels, getting tested and trying to be cleared in time for games? Will players who are potentially positive have to wait four or five days for results, while they are around their teammates? The intake tests should be the easiest part.

None of this is making anyone feel sure that this season is going to take place. If the most basic starting point — initial testing — is botched, how can anyone feel confident about taking the field?

A’s pitcher Jake Diekman, who has an autoimmune condition that puts him at-risk, excoriated the process in a conversation with The Chronicle’s Susan Slusser.

“I honestly feel like this is just going to get shut down in a week, or everyone is going to opt out,” Diekman said.

...

The Cubs’ Kris Bryant said Monday, “I wanted to play this year because I felt that it would be safe, and I would be comfortable. Honestly, I don’t really feel that way. ... If we can’t nail the easy part, which is right now and just our players, we’ve got a big hill to climb.”

...

“We haven’t done any of the things that other countries have done to bring sports back,” said Washington reliever Sean Doolittle, who spent parts of six seasons with the A’s. “Sports are like the reward of a functioning society.”

And we don’t appear ready for that reward.

We're botching this, despite having months to prepare and knowing pretty exactly what we have to do to make it work. And a lot of the failures are fundamental, because we don't have a national response which supports the necessary actions. (I mean, really, you have to mail the tests to a lab in Utah, and wait two days? How can we possibly make that work?)

And, football's problem is way worse than baseball's, because there are probably four times as many people involved per team, and far fewer ways to manage disabilities on the roster.

Football has the weakest player's union, and it's possible that the owners will just be able to bulldoze the opposition to get games on the field. But more and more players are likely to be taking positions like Diekman, Bryant and Doolittle. What happens if Mahomes says "yeah, no, I ain't going out there"?

Edited by CalBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gally said:

But that is the rub.  If you want access you cannot come and go.  You must test clean and then stay for the duration (or once you leave you are gone for good).  Kind of like going to a game now.  There is no re-entry.  You come in and are there for the duration.  Once you leave you are gone for good. 

 

It is a very simple solution (especially for something like the NBA that can play on the same court for 5 or 6 games a day). 

I think you are greatly oversimplifying by assuming that just being in a bubble prevents infection. @Anarchy99's analogy of the NBA is apt. Regardless of whether they are using viral or antibody tests, we've seen false positives happen. And the test administration itself, depending on how it's administered, can be variable. Add that to the fact that it really is impossible to completely seal off players from any outside contact, there is always going to be some risk.

Even if it's greatly reduced, there is always a non-zero chance for infection to happen within the bubble, and once it does, it's likely to spread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stompin' Tom Connors said:

I think you are greatly oversimplifying by assuming that just being in a bubble prevents infection. @Anarchy99's analogy of the NBA is apt. Regardless of whether they are using viral or antibody tests, we've seen false positives happen. And the test administration itself, depending on how it's administered, can be variable. Add that to the fact that it really is impossible to completely seal off players from any outside contact, there is always going to be some risk.

Even if it's greatly reduced, there is always a non-zero chance for infection to happen within the bubble, and once it does, it's likely to spread.

False negatives, of course, are worse than false positives. And so far our tests, well, suck.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200610094112.htm

Quote

The researchers estimated that those tested with SARS-CoV-2 in the four days after infection were 67% more likely to test negative, even if they had the virus. When the average patient began displaying symptoms of the virus, the false-negative rate was 38%. The test performed best eight days after infection (on average, three days after symptom onset), but even then had a false negative rate of 20%, meaning one in five people who had the virus had a negative test result.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ruffrodys05 said:

100%. 10 games is a critical number to owners. They'll get at least this many games in, no matter what.

Thanks. Can you elaborate?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gally said:

I would think you could find plenty of people in those industries willing to be "trapped" in a bubble with all of the NBA teams for 6 months while getting paid their usual wages.  I am sure it would include room and board so that is kind of a bonus.  They get to see all the games and I am sure there would be mingling time with the players because what else would they be doing. 

 

It just seems like the best possible solution and I don't see that it would be that much more expensive than doing what they are trying to do now and it would be much safer. 

 

I understand them (NBA) not wanting to do it that way and there would still be a ton of logistics that would need to happen but I don't think the salaries of the workers "stuck" in the bubble would be that big of deal in the grand scheme of things. 

I agree.  Finding workers who would be willing to sequester themselves for good pay / benefits is no big deal. I recently watched a documentary where these German tunnel builders went all the way to New Mexico for to work underground for months with little-to-no contact with the outside world.  They completed the job with (almost) no issues!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ruffrodys05 said:

100%. 10 games is a critical number to owners. They'll get at least this many games in, no matter what.

 

11 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks. Can you elaborate?

 

I'm speculating for sure here but, if I'm not mistaken 10 games is the number of games played that is used to determine an accrued season (or loss of one if missed) with regards to player contracts and the players union. Getting that many games in, regardless if there's fans in the seats or not, is critical to owners. Add in broadcast revenue needed and to me it's a no brainer.

Of course, I could just be blathering along with no clue what I'm talking about. It's possible I'm misremembering something important.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ruffrodys05 said:

 

I'm speculating for sure here but, if I'm not mistaken 10 games is the number of games played that is used to determine an accrued season (or loss of one if missed) with regards to player contracts and the players union. Getting that many games in, regardless if there's fans in the seats or not, is critical to owners. Add in broadcast revenue needed and to me it's a no brainer.

Of course, I could just be blathering along with no clue what I'm talking about. It's possible I'm misremembering something important.

Well I hope you're right. If you confirm anything there, please let us know and tag me. Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, CalBear said:

Ann Killion is one of the best critical writers in sports. Here's her article on baseball's current status:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/annkillion/article/If-MLB-can-t-handle-coronavirus-tests-how-are-15389365.php

We're botching this, despite having months to prepare and knowing pretty exactly what we have to do to make it work. And a lot of the failures are fundamental, because we don't have a national response which supports the necessary actions. (I mean, really, you have to mail the tests to a lab in Utah, and wait two days? How can we possibly make that work?)

And, football's problem is way worse than baseball's, because there are probably four times as many people involved per team, and far fewer ways to manage disabilities on the roster.

Football has the weakest player's union, and it's possible that the owners will just be able to bulldoze the opposition to get games on the field. But more and more players are likely to be taking positions like Diekman, Bryant and Doolittle. What happens if Mahomes says "yeah, no, I ain't going out there"?

Baseball also has some uncertainty around what players with pregnant wives will do.(Wheeler, Trout, not sure if Harper is considering opting out)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Stompin' Tom Connors said:

I voted zero. 

With record numbers of daily new cases spiking in the last 3-4 weeks in the US, and such wide variance in approaches without any strong central federal leadership, with wearing masks and other protective measures (even the rejection of science) becoming a political litmus test instead of being universally adopted to stem the tide, I think we're going to see continued elevated new cases for months.

For me, I don't see this changing meaningfully through the fall, where it will be too late.

As painful as it seems, I really don't think ANY sports should resume -- NFL, NHL, NBA, etc. I get that people want and need sports as a distraction. But that's all it is, where the focus should be on flattening the curve with combined and coordinated federal and state action.

As I witness what's going on all around me and all across the country, I'm really saddened by the lack of reality -- people seem to have their heads in the sand after 4 months of this crisis, which is unbelievable to me. And as the more I think about that reality, the more I think the NFL will try to force things to happen -- I believe that the league can easily survive a skip-year given the money that's involved, but I don't think the league's owners will have an appetite to forego a year. Too much money is involved to have them try to recoup some loss. Greed supersedes all.

I agree with your take on this, especially the part where i think the NFL probably thinks it is too big to not get its way and how easily the general public seems to have no regard for reality and common sense.  I do not know what you mean by federal leadership, though. I think they have provided recommendations and they simply haven't been followed, in large part and I know a lot of people think the president can just say everyone has to do this starting now but that's not how that works. He really can't enforce a policy like that across states without several other political things happening and being agreed upon formally (which seems to be impossible in this climate). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

@Joe Bryantwhat are your thoughts on all this? What is your % guess? Obviously if you'd prefer not to say that's cool. 

Thanks @barackdhouse   My answer unfortunately depends on what time of day you ask me. ;). I want to think it's 90% we get 10 games in. But I truly don't know. 

I do feel comforted by the fact there are tons of people (and companies and dollars) cheering the same outcome I want. It's not like political parties fighting or a normal "battle". Pretty much everyone wants a season so that's helpful.

A ton will depend on how NBA and MLB go as well. 

But really, I'm just feeling my way along like you guys. Where it may be a little different is pretty much my entire annual income relies on it. :(  We'll see. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gally said:

I would think if you put 4000 people in a bubble after testing and confirming everyone was virus free it wouldn't matter if they were playing or working together - even with spit flying.   All the risk would be removed - provided nobody ever left the bubble. 

But how do you maintain that? Let's say this was a true, physical bubble- city with 4-5,000 people in it and a bunch of fields and these people and their families are going to live in it for 6-7 months and do this.  How do you absolutely curtail the risks of food coming in, trash going out, services that are needed, etc? If a player has to go seek medical treatment at a hospital, is he not allowed back all year for risk of contamination?  Does an emergency dentist appointment for Andy Reid keep him away from his team for a month?  I mean, its almost like something out of a book. you would need a futuristic self-contained city on Mars to isolate this amount of people properly and, if you DO that, then all that money we are talking about takes a huge hit (nobody at games, no food selling, no SB sponsors, activities, etc).  So at that point, maybe it is NOT worth it. 

And if you DO somehow pull that off, it becomes like a space fiction story where people go mad during long trips in space.  Can you imagine these types of people being isolated that long? Or even if you're a family guy and bring your family, does your 5 year old daughter just go to school in the bubble school and be removed from their friends and aunts and uncles and grandparents for a year?  If you stop to really think how far the fingers stretch into people "living", it's hard to think they can even try to do this.

 

In many ways, people have thought the NFL was the luckiest sport because of the timing but they may get it the worst when it is all said and done because if we backslide into another lockdown it comes in spades this time and NFL football is by far the most contact sport and have the most reason to simultaneously need to play because of career length but also not play because of risks. A year off for an aging QB or WR is a lot harder.  A year off for some RBs and lineman that like to eat like Eddie Lacy might be devastating. 

If College football doesn't get cranked up, what happens to next year's draft? Who drafts or who wants to be drafted after all this time off?  It's a very unique thing with lots of roads to consider. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks @barackdhouse   My answer unfortunately depends on what time of day you ask me. ;). I want to think it's 90% we get 10 games in. But I truly don't know. 

I do feel comforted by the fact there are tons of people (and companies and dollars) cheering the same outcome I want. It's not like political parties fighting or a normal "battle". Pretty much everyone wants a season so that's helpful.

A ton will depend on how NBA and MLB go as well. 

But really, I'm just feeling my way along like you guys. Where it may be a little different is pretty much my entire annual income relies on it. :(  We'll see. 

Good points. I've been on a sort of slow and steady decrease in confidence. Voted 40% originally but that might be high for how I feel now.

I'm giving much more serious thought to the prospect of my wife and I being forced to home school our kids (at least partially). It is helpful and encouraging to know there are so many others in the same boat, but daunting nonetheless. 

My hopeful thought is that maybe this prolonged first wave that is exploding right now will crest in time to move forward with the season (and school and life). Correct me if I'm wrong but I have October 5th stuck in my head as the NFL's line in the sand to delay the start of the season and still be able to play 16. That's a lot of time of for this to be stamped down still. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gally said:

But that is the rub.  If you want access you cannot come and go.  You must test clean and then stay for the duration (or once you leave you are gone for good).  Kind of like going to a game now.  There is no re-entry.  You come in and are there for the duration.  Once you leave you are gone for good. 

 

It is a very simple solution (especially for something like the NBA that can play on the same court for 5 or 6 games a day). 

Except that simplicity gets messy very quickly.  Works for a vendor, I guess. Make a decision.  But what happens when A starting QBs wife gets word her parents died in a car wreck?  She leaves and takes the kids with her and we'll see you in 4 months?  Does the QB go too? We know how its almost a badge of honor in the NFL to play through and say that's what so and so would have wanted but there are hundreds of things that could cause these types of decisions to be made for players coaches, admin, or families and some of them would literally run the risk of fracturing a family or tormenting a person forever A single player with nobody in the bubble with him loses his mother.  He stays but carries the guilt.  You know. things like that. Or a Coach or player has some general pain that needs a specialist.  They know if they leave, they are done or at least done for a month. They choose to stay and drop dead of heart failure.  How do you even begin to reconcile that emotionally or ethically? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious why we would expect the NFL to be able to keep to its regular schedule when basketball, hockey, and baseball have had 4 months and still haven't played anything yet. And 2 of those 3 are trying the bubble approach with no travel at all (and much smaller rosters). Other than batter / catcher / umpire, everyone on the field in baseball will be way farther apart than 6 feet. The line of scrimmage in football will have players breathing right on top of each other.

I guess what I am asking is what does the NFL know or can do differently (or better) than those other sports. In fact, IMO, football probably has communicated less of their master plan to players and teams than the other sports.

People keep bringing up that football is big business and they will go to extreme lengths to get a revenue stream flowing . . . do all the other sports not want to make money? Are they not multi-billion dollar industries themselves? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Just curious why we would expect the NFL to be able to keep to its regular schedule when basketball, hockey, and baseball have had 4 months and still haven't played anything yet. And 2 of those 3 are trying the bubble approach with no travel at all (and much smaller rosters). Other than batter / catcher / umpire, everyone on the field in baseball will be way farther apart than 6 feet. The line of scrimmage in football will have players breathing right on top of each other.

I guess what I am asking is what does the NFL know or can do differently (or better) than those other sports. In fact, IMO, football probably has communicated less of their master plan to players and teams than the other sports.

People keep bringing up that football is big business and they will go to extreme lengths to get a revenue stream flowing . . . do all the other sports not want to make money? Are they not multi-billion dollar industries themselves? 

I agree with your questions. I think the answer, though, is money.  The NBA, MLB, etc is like Dak Prescott.  They are rich. The NFL is like Jerry Jones. They are wealthy. Its not meant to be a literal dollar for dollar comparison but the dynamics, the popularity of the sport, the timing, the length of careers, the weakness of the NFLPA, etc, etc, are all factors that I believe make some of us think that the NFL just has a way to get people's desires to see the product be somehow justified enough to actually play the game and chase that money. 

I love sports and I watch the NFL more than the others but after seeing the country at-large unable to do a lot of common sense things to help protect one another, I am concerned for sports to try to do it where huge money and interests are involved. I honestly think they should all shut it down. It will likely never appear or only in much smaller numbers than it occurs but we are setting up some people to make some very poor decisions that they will have to live with.  I mean, look at these coaches and their ages. Just by statistics and the nature of their jobs, they and their wives and their aging parents are some of the most at-risk people in this scenario but I can not fathom a scenario where Andy Reid or Mike Tomlin or John Harbaugh says "I can't be with my team". This is conjecture, of course, but I bet there are a LOT of players and coaches out there that are hoping this gets taken out of their hands and they don't play.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shutout said:

I agree with your questions. I think the answer, though, is money.  The NBA, MLB, etc is like Dak Prescott.  They are rich. The NFL is like Jerry Jones. They are wealthy. Its not meant to be a literal dollar for dollar comparison but the dynamics, the popularity of the sport, the timing, the length of careers, the weakness of the NFLPA, etc, etc, are all factors that I believe make some of us think that the NFL just has a way to get people's desires to see the product be somehow justified enough to actually play the game and chase that money. 

I love sports and I watch the NFL more than the others but after seeing the country at-large unable to do a lot of common sense things to help protect one another, I am concerned for sports to try to do it where huge money and interests are involved. I honestly think they should all shut it down. It will likely never appear or only in much smaller numbers than it occurs but we are setting up some people to make some very poor decisions that they will have to live with.  I mean, look at these coaches and their ages. Just by statistics and the nature of their jobs, they and their wives and their aging parents are some of the most at-risk people in this scenario but I can not fathom a scenario where Andy Reid or Mike Tomlin or John Harbaugh says "I can't be with my team". This is conjecture, of course, but I bet there are a LOT of players and coaches out there that are hoping this gets taken out of their hands and they don't play.  

In many ways, I view the NFL as I do the United States in terms of the response to the virus. We are more advanced, more knowledgeable, and should be in prime position to take on the virus . . and we can just stomp it out because we want to. The government works in factors of trillions of dollars, yet here we are 4-6 months later and looking like we have made little to no progress. My concern for the NFL is that, sure, they have deep pockets . . . in the billions (not trillions). But the league members are not experts in Epidemiology, Virology, or Public Health.

Many people haven't really fully embraced taking the necessary steps to limit the virus . . . but somehow all the collected people within the NFL community (and potentially fans) are going to suddenly do all the mandatory things that are required? That sounds a lot like wishful thinking.

I have been saying for months now the best bet to have an NFL season would be to go the bubble route in some remote location where the virus still hasn't really permeated the area (Wyoming? Vermont? Montana?). IMO, that would stand a far greater chance of being successful than trying to have 32 teams travel back and forth across the country for months (and potentially running in to a second wave of the virus later this year). To me, that has so many red flags I can't even begin to count them all.

Maybe the league will accept some players getting infected, outcomes of games swayed by quarantined players, some forfeited games, or an older coach getting sick and dying. But I think the league had hoped they would have been able to observe what other sports were doing . . . which obviously hasn't happened in the U.S. yet.

If I had to guess, some teams will go unscathed and others will have a lot of issues . . . how does that lead to a fair and equitable competitive balance across the league? We will have to see what the league does once the rubber hits the road and there are potholes and speed bumps along the way. Until we actually see what those hot button issues are, it's really difficult to guess how the league will respond to and how they try to resolve them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

but somehow all the collected people within the NFL community (and potentially fans) are going to suddenly do all the mandatory things that are required? That sounds a lot like wishful thinking.

No. They aren't. And they are going to play anyway. That is the only way it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

Just curious why we would expect the NFL to be able to keep to its regular schedule when basketball, hockey, and baseball have had 4 months and still haven't played anything yet. And 2 of those 3 are trying the bubble approach with no travel at all (and much smaller rosters). Other than batter / catcher / umpire, everyone on the field in baseball will be way farther apart than 6 feet. The line of scrimmage in football will have players breathing right on top of each other.

I guess what I am asking is what does the NFL know or can do differently (or better) than those other sports. In fact, IMO, football probably has communicated less of their master plan to players and teams than the other sports.

People keep bringing up that football is big business and they will go to extreme lengths to get a revenue stream flowing . . . do all the other sports not want to make money? Are they not multi-billion dollar industries themselves? 

Baseball has other issue that are hindering their start back up.  Primarily the big #### show between the owners and players.  That has been probably a bigger obstacle and the virus for baseball's problems in starting back up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.