Sorry I provided a different perspective. I forgot that's not welcome in the land of group think.
To be clear, Im not attacking you. If it came across that way, I apologize. I just want rational discussion.
COLUMN: How COVID-19 will change college football forever
- Thread starter ChrisMWilliams
- Start date
Sorry I provided a different perspective. I forgot that's not welcome in the land of group think.
To be clear, Im not attacking you. If it came across that way, I apologize. I just want rational discussion.
Different perspectives are fine. I'd be put in the 'left leaning' category but I have plenty of ideas and thoughts that don't go over well when I ask questions that don't fit the broad shared narratives of that population.
Talking around problems without getting to the root has the same effect as ignoring them.
I'd think deeper thought about things beyond vague 'Welp, we just gotta get back to normal and people will just need to figure out their risks' would be allowed too.
Did some simple math. I can detail all my assumptions if you like. Relates to my priority question.
If you tested all players and staff 1/week for the season:
FBS = 468,000 tests
FCS = 375,000 tests
Colleges = 1,257,600 tests
High school = 9,075,753 tests
Edit, forgot HS Staffs, add another 1,152,000 tests
Last edited:
Here's my thoughts: Should testing football players become a national priority in the sense that the Federal Government should intentionally set aside stockpiles of tests for the use of football teams? No. Without getting political, the federal government isn't even doing that for medical workers, police and firefighters or other absolutely vital people. They are only doing it for the actual federal government such as the President, VP, likely some cabinet members and other key staff, and offered it to Congress though they refused. So, while I think it would make sense if the government did manage the testing process at least for certain key groups (not including football), I don't think it will be done at all and definitely not for football players.
Testing is currently handled at the state level. So we should look at it that way. Iowa currently seems to be able to test about 3,000 people per day or about 21,000 people per week. If we assumed 1 test per week for ISU and Iowa that's something like 600 tests per week, or about 3% of Iowa's current testing capacity. Add UNI and it's something like 4-5%. That's assuming that football players would be tested through the normal public healthcare system. So it's not particularly burdensome.
I don't personally believe that football players would be tested through the normal health system. I believe that Universities would hire private testing contractors to be on site at the school and perform tests as needed. Essentially, they would be outside the normal flow of regular tests being performed and would not take away from capacity needed for the general population. This is assuming we have the ability to increase the production of the physical tests and necessary chemicals, and that there would be lab space available to process the tests, etc by late summer. If that doesn't happen, then all bets are off.
I personally think that it should be limited to FBS and FCS level programs along with the NFL. Lower division college and high school football is not going to be able to be played. They will not have the funding to do the testing needed, or the facilities to keep players quarantined from the general population. Some FBS and FCS programs will also likely have to bow out due to lack of funds.
It is SUCH a tough situation. It’s hard to see how they can justify playing without testing every player every week. But it’s hard to see that we’ll have enough tests to make that happen. And we can say all we want that the risk is low to college football players but one outbreak and all of a sudden you are forfeiting games. And if our opponent has a few positive players, then you can’t tell me that we’d want them to forfeit.
I guess I think the problem is that your suggestions are pretty universally accepted. If you want more specifics it really depends on an individual situation.
Are you sure that many people are getting tested? Or is that the number of tests being performed? Those aren’t the same thing.
It's the number of tests being performed per the state's website. It is different than the number of people being tested. I'm not sure if that has a significant meaning though. A test is a test, regardless of who's getting it. Yeah, there may be some base level of testing that is regular testing for medical personnel or high level government officials.
The fact remains that data seems to show that we have the capability to perform about 3000 tests per day in the state of Iowa, up from about 2000 per day in April. Testing the three main football programs in the state weekly would only require an increase of about 5% in current testing capacity if those tests are run through the general public health system. I don't personally think that will happen, but even if it does that seems very reasonable to me.
UNI has enough in reserves to cover one year if its combined with some travel reductions for non-revenue sports. There's some push in FCS circles to cancel all non-FBS non-conference games to save on travel and to play some non-conference games against conference opponents.
Depending on how long this goes, I'm fairly concerned about the future of UNI Wrestling. It's expensive from a travel perspective and the only men's sport that can be cut to stay within Missouri Vally rules. I'd hate it as that program has gotten so much better in the last decade and has a great history but I'm afraid economic realities might strike hard.
Per Reynolds, in the first 23 days, 4300 tests have been done. Certainly much of that is start up problems. The purchased total was 3000 per day. So, they have a long ways to go - hopefully they get to 3000.
What are you referring to here? The "TestIowa" portion of tests only? Nearly 90,000 tests have been performed in the state. Since 4/22, most days have has more than 2000 tests. Every day this week has had more than 3000 tests performed. 4475 tests were performed on 5/12 alone.
https://coronavirus.iowa.gov/pages/case-counts
Thank you, very thoughtful reply. Agree with much of what you have to say, although I am not sure that 5% of our test capacity might be easily manageable to have FB at the three major state schools.
I am too lazy to try to assess all the “higher priority” test needs and see what they add up to. I do not know how they got the number, but Harvard said Iowa needed over 10,000 test per day capacity.
Without tremendous thought, I might put medical workers, care facility workers, police, fireman, ambulance, EMT, teachers
and suspected sick people above FB players. PLUS - I really have not heard that our state is doing any significant.contact tracing. When you add an increasing number of cases and an increasing number of contact tracing requirements I am not sure how this all nets out.
Yeah, I agree that there are a lot of people and industries which should be prioritized above football. That's why I don't really like the idea of using public health capacity for football players. 5% of the state's public health testing capacity should not be taken up by 0.03% of the state's population. The only way I would feel it's acceptable is if major donors/boosters (or team owners for pro teams) provided funding for the additional capacity needed for athletics. The only reason I discussed it at all is to help people understand that it's not an insane increase in capacity necessary to do these tests relative to what is being done now.
I think it's reasonable that teams would have their own private testing infrastructure, just like they have their own team doctors, physical therapists, etc. As long as the materials are available and the money works out, I think that is how they will do it. Then, we don't have to take tests out of the public health system.
As for public policy I agree we should continue to increase testing capacity and the ability to contact trace, etc. I just see that as a separate issue. No problem about the mixup on testing numbers, I just wanted to make sure you had all the info.
You would have to test players every day. Where are cash strapped ADs getting money for that kind of testing capacity?
Could have used one of those at Baylor last year...May need to get this tent in order to do our testing for the virus before letting people tailgate:
TV contracts which magically disappear if we don't have football. If there is a way to have football they will make it happen.
I don't disagree it could get expensive. And I also agree once per week for all players and staff is probably the minimum number of tests. It will probably be significantly more in reality.
But, though it is expensive look at all the other insane and expensive things done by the Athletic Departments. You would probably be willing to give up things like special alternate uniforms, or send fewer players to road games, put major renovations on hold, or cut back on the random perks they get in order to pay for testing so they can play at all.
I do think it's going to make it impossible for some teams to play this year, especially the lower FBS and FCS schools.
Man, I don't know about 5-10 years. There are a LOT of smart people working on this. Hell, Bill Gates directed all of his foundation funds toward it. They'll have something in a year at most. Now whether the virus mutates and they need a different vaccine a year from now is the question.
