Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
NFL and Covid Issues - Initially Asked in Shark Pool To Keep it 100% NFL (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
AIKENS BACON
Footballguy
Can ANYBODY tell me EXACTLY what the testing policy is for the NFL? Is the game on between the Bills & Titans based on the testing this morning? Or if there is 1 positive test tomorrow is the game moved? Anybody?
Doug B
Footballguy
The way the NFL has been doing things ... two consecutive days of zero positives means that a game can take place on the third day. Titans tested all negative Sunday 10/11, and then again on Monday 10/12 -- so the Tuesday night game on 10/13 can proceed.
The NFL has not been testing teams on game days, so there should be no Tuesday morning surprise test that jeopardizes tomorrow night's game. That said, the NFL can change those protocols at the drop of a hat, so far as I'm aware.
Pretty simple really. Read "War and Peace" backwards,standing on your head,outside,at night,in the rain and you'll get the general idea of NFL protocols.
ChiefD
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I'm lucky that my job allows me to work semi-flexible hours -- I normally get into the office around 6:30 and leave about 4:00, so this works for me just fine.
FYI, I attended a Bills game at Arrowhead a few years ago with my son, and Chiefs fans were nothing but friendly. Nice environment even for away fans.
So if I'm reading right, as it stands now for week 6, we have:
No Thursday night game
Nine early games
Two late games
One SNF game
Two MNF games
They have to flex one or two early games to later, right? I can't believe CBS wants to subject the entire country to Jets/Dolphins.
No Thursday night game
Nine early games
Two late games
One SNF game
Two MNF games
They have to flex one or two early games to later, right? I can't believe CBS wants to subject the entire country to Jets/Dolphins.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
And dumb that if they had acted last week or early weekend...they could have had Packers/Bucs on Thursday.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
moleculo
Footballguy
pretty much. My understanding is the NFL will do everything they can to shuffle schedules to preserve a 17 week schedule. They will go to 18 or even 19 weeks if absolutely necessary, and only for games with playoff implications. forfeits and cancellations are not on the table.
ETA: all it takes to get to a 18 week schedule is for one team who has already had a bye or a team playing a team who has already had a bye to get popped. odds are pretty good, I'd say.
Last edited by a moderator:
The tests take 12 hours or so, right? So we may learn tomorrow AM of a test administered today turning up a positive. That's what happened with the Patriots, right? A test given on Saturday was reported on Sunday AM and so the Sunday game got moved. Same can happen again, right?
Mr. Irrelevant
IBL Representative
But it's not like Moses came down with that schedule inscribed on stone tablets. They drew it up in the first place! They had every opportunity to make it as malleable as possible to maximize the amount of shuffling they could do within a 17-week time frame ... and for whatever reason, they chose not to. As a result they're already at a point where moving one game out of its current spot requires shuffling 8 other games around down the line. It's safe to say the logistics aren't gonna get easier from here.
So they can go on all they want about the sanctity of the 17-week calendar, but this is the bed they made. They're gonna find out pretty soon it isn't much fun to lie in.
moleculo
Footballguy
with full benefit of hindsight, it's not how I would have done it.
I probably would have cut the season to 14 games - 6 divisional, 4 from one division within conference, 4 from opposite conference. Add two byes for a total of three. Set the games up into sets of three, three, three, two, so every team gets a bye week at least every three games, and all divisions are on the same bye week schedule. TV contract is not implicated as there will be 17 weeks of broadcastable games, and plenty of slack to re-arrange as needed.
The main thing they care about with TV is:
At least something every weekend, no week with every team off, and,
Super Bowl on or before 2/28/21
Doug B
Footballguy
The initial daily tests (the ones they take when they say everyone on a team tested negative) are quick turnaround. Not sure how quick, but it looks to be less than a few hours. They test early in the a.m., and results are known to the public before noon, usually.
If they find a positive with a daily quick test, they'll do a slower test to confirm. This happened when the Saints FB Burton came up with a false positive on the Saturday before a game -- the Saints were flying to Detroit when the "positive" was announced. Burton (and several other players sitting near him) took a slower confirmation test ASAP after the plane landed. Results were known by early Sunday morning -- it was negative, and the game went on as scheduled.
I think the slower test is not a firm 12 hours ... it's not like they do a slow test and have to "let it bake" for 12 hours to see a result. Transportation and shuttling samples around is built into that 12-hour estimate. A lot depends on proximity to the NFL's testing labs (there are five (?) throughout the U.S.).
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I think the reason they did not schedule multiple full stop bye weeks (ie, weeks when all 32 teams were off) is they didn't want people changing the channel to other options (especially other sports). Maybe there was a way to give each team 2-3 byes and keep some games on the schedule so people would at least keep tuning in. Maybe one game each on Thurs, early Sun, late Sun, SNF, and MNF. At least they could have had some added flexibility then.
In a few weeks, all teams will have gotten past their byes and the only remaining option to play all 16 games per team will be after the regular season is over. In hindsight, not having any bye weeks in traditional cold and flu season probably was not the best decision (if the talk of a second surge pans out).
I am guessing they really, really don't want a team to have to make up more than one game (as multiple playoff teams would end up having 2 weeks off before the playoffs and the 2 bye teams would end up with 3 weeks off).
In a few weeks, all teams will have gotten past their byes and the only remaining option to play all 16 games per team will be after the regular season is over. In hindsight, not having any bye weeks in traditional cold and flu season probably was not the best decision (if the talk of a second surge pans out).
I am guessing they really, really don't want a team to have to make up more than one game (as multiple playoff teams would end up having 2 weeks off before the playoffs and the 2 bye teams would end up with 3 weeks off).
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
Yup. The Lions and Packers just had their byes this week and there will be more teams going forward now who use their bye week. If any of those teams end up involved with Covid issues there won’t be any option other than adding a week or canceling a game.
My bet is that the NFL will be more and more lax on their care for player health and will be forcing games to happen no matter what. Guys who test positive will have to sit out and everyone else will play no matter what kind of close contact occurred or how many positives there are.
Capella
Footballguy
He has a point. The bye is in place for them to take it easy on their bodies for a week. To have that taken away when the team didn’t do anything wrong sucks.
joey
Footballguy
3 words!
D
V
R
that’s what I did yesterday when the Raiders beat the, um, I forget who they beat
luckily for me, though, was that my family and I were at the in-laws yesterday and none of them care about football at all. So it was easy to avoid the score and watch it when I got home.
Pip's Invitation
Footballguy
I thought that's what we would see from the beginning. The NFL has shown over the years that it doesn't really care about player health, and frankly many of the players don't care about their own health.
Doug B
Footballguy
Capella
Footballguy
No chance they would do 6 games. Literally the only reason they are doing this is for the money.amnesiac said:It’s not sexy, and wouldn’t make much money.
but. my proposal was have each division do a “bubble”, play a 6 game season, and then start the playoffs from there.
they could have done an extra week between playoff games as well.
Mr. Irrelevant
IBL Representative
I read (sorry I can't remember where or I'd link) a similar bubble idea that I loved.
Four 'regional' bubbles for the East, North, South and West. Each team plays a 10-game in-region schedule consisting of their divisional opponents 2x each and the other four teams in the bubble 1x each. Two teams qualify for the playoffs from each bubble (I'd have the #1 automatically qualify, #3 play #4 with the winner taking on #2 for the second playoff spot, but that's personal preference). Those 8 teams go to a playoff bubble in January and you hold the typical playoff schedule from there.
If you wanted to make some additional money (and heaven knows that's the NFL), you could start half the divisions off in a different regional bubble and have everyone open the schedule with a separate 4-game inter-conference slate for a 14-game total.
You could have constructed something approximating a normal schedule even in a bubble environment. Whether you'd have ever gotten the NFLPA to agree to anything approximating a normal duration season in a bubble is the bigger question IMO.
moleculo
Footballguy
IMO it also would be possible to have 32 bubbles. There is no reason to physically co-locate multiple teams. Instead, each team rents out a hotel or dormitory and turn that into your bubble. To travel, you already are chartering planes and buses; all you have to do is not spend the night. Fly in the day of the game, fly home afterwards. There really is no need to spend the night.
If players/coaches/staff needed to leave the bubble for various reasons (i.e. family visitation, medical treatments, etc), you quarantine them separate from the bubble for a few days (coupled with testing every day) and they are back in.
These are solvable problems.
The thing I don't know about "bubble" scenarios is how many games can be on a single field in a day? Do they need to recondition the turf after a game? Is there some turnaround involved?
You'd probably need to bubble somewhere with two stadiums nearby and hold games there on different days, maybe 2 on Saturday and 2 on Sunday at each location? It would have helped if the ncaa postponed the college season.
Another thing is that if you look at the stats, cases were trending down when these decisions were made. The NFL didn't grasp the second wave was coming, and didn't build in the flexibility to adjust if it did.
You'd probably need to bubble somewhere with two stadiums nearby and hold games there on different days, maybe 2 on Saturday and 2 on Sunday at each location? It would have helped if the ncaa postponed the college season.
Another thing is that if you look at the stats, cases were trending down when these decisions were made. The NFL didn't grasp the second wave was coming, and didn't build in the flexibility to adjust if it did.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
The chances of having 32 successful and sustainable bubbles would be exceedingly low. For starters, you would be having a ton of team related people agreeing to have to stay in only designated areas for over 6 months, which by extension would mean no contact with their families.
Beyond that, there is absolutely no way to get everyone else involved in football related operations, transportation, game day operations, etc. to conform to a bubble. You just can't. There are way too many people involved that are not employed by the NFL . . . hotel employees, bus drivers, broadcast personnel, food service companies, medical professionals, maintenance people, airport personnel, etc. The league could not demand and force them to only handle the NFL's needs (and then have them stay away from their families as well).
And once you have teams going from one bubble to another bubble, that almost defeats the purpose of having a bubble. Traveling on the same day as game day, sometimes across the country and leaving at you knows when to have to play the game would negatively impact the road team.
The broader question becomes what civil liberties should players be expected to have given the pandemic and the desire to get a full season played. Should they be able to see their families? Got to a neighboring store or mall attached to the stadium? Eat at a restaurant next to a hotel? Go to the lobby of a hotel to get a bottle of water? Go for a walk for fresh air? If the answer for any of those is no, I am betting a lot of players would say those are unreasonable expectations for a 6-month period.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
The Titans are having 9,000 fans at tonight’s game. I’m not sure that it’s actually dangerous or anything, but man the optics just seem awful on that.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I'm just basking in the knowledge that 31 other fan bases are rooting for tonight. Usually that only happens twice a year when we play the Patriots, but they've temporarily slipped to the second most hated franchise in the major sports.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I was going to post about this after I heard it being discussed on local TV sports talk last night (but had not seen it posted online anywhere). Now that I can LINK to it . . .
Any individual who is identified as “high risk” for being in close contact to a player who has tested positive must be isolated and cannot return to the team for a minimum of five days.
That opens up a whole new can of worms. For players that test positive later in the week, there could (should?) be multiple teammates that fall into the "high risk" / close proximity category. The issue will be if teams will actually follow the new protocol on holding out players for 5 days (and thus missing games when they never tested positive).
This is what probably should have been happening all along (and better fits the CDC guidelines for isolating after being in close contact and exposed to someone that is positive). But it probably has a chance of teams having to sit multiple players on game day (if teams follow the rules) and impacting the outcome of games.
Any individual who is identified as “high risk” for being in close contact to a player who has tested positive must be isolated and cannot return to the team for a minimum of five days.
That opens up a whole new can of worms. For players that test positive later in the week, there could (should?) be multiple teammates that fall into the "high risk" / close proximity category. The issue will be if teams will actually follow the new protocol on holding out players for 5 days (and thus missing games when they never tested positive).
This is what probably should have been happening all along (and better fits the CDC guidelines for isolating after being in close contact and exposed to someone that is positive). But it probably has a chance of teams having to sit multiple players on game day (if teams follow the rules) and impacting the outcome of games.
The Frankman
Footballguy
https://twitter.com/MikeGarafolo/status/1316101714022367234
FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY!!!!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Therein lies the rub. Another question I have is why is this news in Greater Boston but no place else? This is the second day in a row it's been discussed pretty extensively on TV / radio / online . . . yet I literally have seen nothing on it anywhere. Is this something they approved only for NE players? Cause I can't any find information about the new protocols anywhere else (I was looking for an answer to what you just asked).
The Frankman
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
The Frankman
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Dez
Footballguy
Just be glad if the game is played we have KC people hitting the covid list left and right. Not feeling confident right now.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I posted something about this earlier . . . we have been trying to decipher what "close contact exposure" means and how it is defined.
elshagon
Footballguy
Marlon Davidson (Atlanta Falcons) tested positive for Covid-19. No idea if other players will have to miss the next game due to the new Covid rules regarding close contact. I'm assuming the Falcons vs. Vikings is now something to monitor this week.
Last edited by a moderator:
VikingFrog
Footballguy
Falcons close facility after multiple positives.
Why were the falcons practicing yesterday if they had a positive case Tuesday?
Im so confused how this whole thing works.
