Opinion: Leaders in college football coming to grips with reality that sport is too risky to play amid coronavirus pandemic
The conversations and considerations that have led college football to the confusing place it finds itself in on Aug. 9 are endlessly complex, but the question that will determine whether other leagues follow the Mid-American Conference in canceling their fall season is relatively straightforward.
Would you stake your career on college football being safe under these circumstances?
No matter how else administrators have tried to rationalize the push forward toward a fall season for months and months, the chill of trepidation that has settled over college sports in recent days bears a distinct resemblance to the consciousness of guilt.
There is nothing wrong with pursuing a season until it becomes realistically impossible to do so, especially given the severe consequences for all of college sports if football is not played this year.
MORE TO COME:Conferences could follow MAC's lead of canceling fall football season
THE PREVIEW:Outlooks for the Top 25 college football teams in the preseason Amway Coaches Poll
But in conversations with more than a dozen college sports officials over the weekend, the witching hour has brought to campuses and college presidents a more clear-eyed reality about what they don’t know related to COVID-19 and the potential liabilities surrounding a virus whose long-term impact on the body is unclear. There is also, at the most basic level, little confidence that the trajectory of infections in the United States is going to end up at an acceptable rate within the next month or two that would allow a contact sport to even take place safely without players being put in a bubble.
The problem is, nobody wants to be the one to say what the majority of college athletics now instinctively knows: Rushing to play football right now just isn’t a very good idea.
“The overriding piece of this is it’s just not clearing up like we all hoped,” said one athletics director, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the fluidity of the situation. “This is just too difficult for us to really believe that it’s right for us to go forward at the moment. It feels like we’re heading for a pause.”
And that pause -- or outright cancellation of fall sports -- could come very quickly. Big Ten presidents are meeting Sunday night to discuss shutting down the season. Other leagues have presidential-level calls scheduled within the next few days, though they could be moved earlier if necessary. The momentum is clear, which brings us back to to the MAC's decision Saturday that turned the discussion 180 degrees from Friday afternoon when the SEC released its new, conference-only fall football schedule.
Get the Sports newsletter in your inbox.
Sports news, no matter the season. Stop by for the scores, stay for the stories.
Delivery: Daily
Your Email
People can argue whether the MAC’s decision to shut down fall sports was completely about the health and safety, as the league claimed Saturday, or because the finances no longer made sense without the ability to make money off non-conference games against Power Five opponents. Both things can be true.
But at least the MAC was willing to make a decision and own it, regardless of the blowback. Eventually, other schools and conferences will have to make a tough call, and they know that if they decide to play this fall, they have to be right. That’s by far the scariest part because, with COVID-19, it tends to be the most uninformed who speak with the most certainty.
For instance, potential cardiac issues related to COVID-19 have been discussed for months as a major unknown. As far back as May, sports cardiologist Jonathan H. Kim of Emory University co-authored an opinion piece that suggested athletes who become infected should not exercise for two weeks after their symptoms resolve and should undergo extensive cardiac testing to look for underlying heart inflammation.
But as the scheduled games get closer, the issue is suddenly getting a second look. According to one person with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the situation, a group of Pac 12 presidents has become significantly concerned about the data they’ve been given as players have undergone necessary cardiac tests.
A Sports Illustrated piece on Sunday anonymously quoted a team doctor who was aware of 10 COVID-related heart issues on college football teams, and a recent paper published in JAMA Cardiology found that 78 of 100 patients they studied had cardiac abnormalities more than two months after being diagnosed with COVID-19.
This brings up two very important questions, particularly at schools that have had large numbers of players test positive for the coronavirus. First, has everyone’s testing on the cardiac part been adequate enough? Second, what is the risk of a player who recovered from COVID-19 dying on the practice field or in the middle of a game due to a related heart issue?
“The studies have a lot of people thinking,” said one athletics director. “Not everybody does baseline heart testing the same way and that’s a concern trying to understand more about the research. Does it heighten or expose someone with a preexisting condition or did this happen because of COVID? We’re dealing with something there aren’t known answers for yet, and we don’t have the benefit of time to see how it all works out. That’s what has everyone additionally concerned.”
In retrospect, as you talk to administrators, many now wistfully admit that college football was doomed as soon as COVID-19 and the notion of public health became politicized. And they know that, too, will rear its ugly head if the season is canceled — not just from some fans and donors who will baselessly accuse schools of kowtowing to liberal academics but perhaps even from President Trump, who has specifically talked about college football coming back as an aspirational normality.
So what now?
As much as the power conferences have wanted to act in concert, there is still no agreement about the path ahead. The Big Ten and Pac 12 are likely joined at the hip, and both leagues have factions that are ready to pack it in, though it’s unclear whether they’ll reach a consensus on that in the next few days. But once a couple leagues make that call, it’s hard to imagine the momentum not sweeping up the rest.
Clemson No. 1 in preseason Amway Coaches PollOpinion: How will COVID-19 affect college football rankings?Five teams snubbed by this year's preseason Amway Coaches PollGreatest COVID-19 threat to college football is not on the field
Then the discussion turns to a season being played in the spring, a topic that has ardent fans and significant detractors. Some schools believe the operational cost of running a normal athletic department through the fall with the hope of playing in the spring makes no sense, particularly since nobody knows whether the conditions around COVID-19 will improve by then. Others think there’s little to lose and envision a shortened season ending by May 1 and then starting the 2021 season in October to give players more time to recover.
“Come March, who knows what the country could have (regarding vaccine, testing, therapeutics and infection numbers),” said one administrator who favors the spring plan. “Certainly better than right now.”
Slowly but surely, college sports is coming to grips with both the ramifications of these decisions and the necessity in making them. In the end, the people in charge are beginning to realize the biggest factor in whether college football can be played was out of their hands all along.
“The virus is not athletics’ problem,” said one athletics director. “It is society’s. But athletics couldn’t safely adapt.”
And until that happens, the ultimate test for college sports remains simple. Unless the people in charge would stake their careers on it being safe enough to play, the other factors don’t really matter.
Would you stake your career on college football being safe under these circumstances?
No matter how else administrators have tried to rationalize the push forward toward a fall season for months and months, the chill of trepidation that has settled over college sports in recent days bears a distinct resemblance to the consciousness of guilt.
There is nothing wrong with pursuing a season until it becomes realistically impossible to do so, especially given the severe consequences for all of college sports if football is not played this year.
MORE TO COME:Conferences could follow MAC's lead of canceling fall football season
THE PREVIEW:Outlooks for the Top 25 college football teams in the preseason Amway Coaches Poll
But in conversations with more than a dozen college sports officials over the weekend, the witching hour has brought to campuses and college presidents a more clear-eyed reality about what they don’t know related to COVID-19 and the potential liabilities surrounding a virus whose long-term impact on the body is unclear. There is also, at the most basic level, little confidence that the trajectory of infections in the United States is going to end up at an acceptable rate within the next month or two that would allow a contact sport to even take place safely without players being put in a bubble.
The problem is, nobody wants to be the one to say what the majority of college athletics now instinctively knows: Rushing to play football right now just isn’t a very good idea.
“The overriding piece of this is it’s just not clearing up like we all hoped,” said one athletics director, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the fluidity of the situation. “This is just too difficult for us to really believe that it’s right for us to go forward at the moment. It feels like we’re heading for a pause.”
And that pause -- or outright cancellation of fall sports -- could come very quickly. Big Ten presidents are meeting Sunday night to discuss shutting down the season. Other leagues have presidential-level calls scheduled within the next few days, though they could be moved earlier if necessary. The momentum is clear, which brings us back to to the MAC's decision Saturday that turned the discussion 180 degrees from Friday afternoon when the SEC released its new, conference-only fall football schedule.
Get the Sports newsletter in your inbox.
Sports news, no matter the season. Stop by for the scores, stay for the stories.
Delivery: Daily
Your Email
People can argue whether the MAC’s decision to shut down fall sports was completely about the health and safety, as the league claimed Saturday, or because the finances no longer made sense without the ability to make money off non-conference games against Power Five opponents. Both things can be true.
But at least the MAC was willing to make a decision and own it, regardless of the blowback. Eventually, other schools and conferences will have to make a tough call, and they know that if they decide to play this fall, they have to be right. That’s by far the scariest part because, with COVID-19, it tends to be the most uninformed who speak with the most certainty.
For instance, potential cardiac issues related to COVID-19 have been discussed for months as a major unknown. As far back as May, sports cardiologist Jonathan H. Kim of Emory University co-authored an opinion piece that suggested athletes who become infected should not exercise for two weeks after their symptoms resolve and should undergo extensive cardiac testing to look for underlying heart inflammation.
But as the scheduled games get closer, the issue is suddenly getting a second look. According to one person with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the situation, a group of Pac 12 presidents has become significantly concerned about the data they’ve been given as players have undergone necessary cardiac tests.
A Sports Illustrated piece on Sunday anonymously quoted a team doctor who was aware of 10 COVID-related heart issues on college football teams, and a recent paper published in JAMA Cardiology found that 78 of 100 patients they studied had cardiac abnormalities more than two months after being diagnosed with COVID-19.
This brings up two very important questions, particularly at schools that have had large numbers of players test positive for the coronavirus. First, has everyone’s testing on the cardiac part been adequate enough? Second, what is the risk of a player who recovered from COVID-19 dying on the practice field or in the middle of a game due to a related heart issue?
“The studies have a lot of people thinking,” said one athletics director. “Not everybody does baseline heart testing the same way and that’s a concern trying to understand more about the research. Does it heighten or expose someone with a preexisting condition or did this happen because of COVID? We’re dealing with something there aren’t known answers for yet, and we don’t have the benefit of time to see how it all works out. That’s what has everyone additionally concerned.”
In retrospect, as you talk to administrators, many now wistfully admit that college football was doomed as soon as COVID-19 and the notion of public health became politicized. And they know that, too, will rear its ugly head if the season is canceled — not just from some fans and donors who will baselessly accuse schools of kowtowing to liberal academics but perhaps even from President Trump, who has specifically talked about college football coming back as an aspirational normality.
So what now?
As much as the power conferences have wanted to act in concert, there is still no agreement about the path ahead. The Big Ten and Pac 12 are likely joined at the hip, and both leagues have factions that are ready to pack it in, though it’s unclear whether they’ll reach a consensus on that in the next few days. But once a couple leagues make that call, it’s hard to imagine the momentum not sweeping up the rest.
Clemson No. 1 in preseason Amway Coaches PollOpinion: How will COVID-19 affect college football rankings?Five teams snubbed by this year's preseason Amway Coaches PollGreatest COVID-19 threat to college football is not on the field
Then the discussion turns to a season being played in the spring, a topic that has ardent fans and significant detractors. Some schools believe the operational cost of running a normal athletic department through the fall with the hope of playing in the spring makes no sense, particularly since nobody knows whether the conditions around COVID-19 will improve by then. Others think there’s little to lose and envision a shortened season ending by May 1 and then starting the 2021 season in October to give players more time to recover.
“Come March, who knows what the country could have (regarding vaccine, testing, therapeutics and infection numbers),” said one administrator who favors the spring plan. “Certainly better than right now.”
Slowly but surely, college sports is coming to grips with both the ramifications of these decisions and the necessity in making them. In the end, the people in charge are beginning to realize the biggest factor in whether college football can be played was out of their hands all along.
“The virus is not athletics’ problem,” said one athletics director. “It is society’s. But athletics couldn’t safely adapt.”
And until that happens, the ultimate test for college sports remains simple. Unless the people in charge would stake their careers on it being safe enough to play, the other factors don’t really matter.
Comments
Post a Comment