Athletes, coaches, families and fans have been waiting for months to know whether there would be a football season this fall. They finally got the answer they’ve been waiting for on Tuesday; It just wasn’t the one many had hoped for.
Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott and a seemingly rudderless decision committee elected to postpone fall sports, football being chief among them. Their choice buys them time, no doubt. But look, they’ve had time. And yes, the last few months have been a haunting cycle of hypotheticals, back and forths and what-ifs, but it seems unlikely the next few months will break that trend.
Good on the Pac-12 for coming to a conclusion sooner rather than later, but their long-awaited response further clouds the already murky future of collegiate athletics. Furthermore, why make such a brash decision just days after releasing an updated Pac-12 football schedule?
In the aftermath of Tuesday’s news, those involved are left with more uneasiness and unknowing than ever before.
Both the Big Ten and Pac-12 have rumored a potential spring return for college football, but how realistic is that, really?
You’re asking these athletes to put their routines on hold and stay in tip-top shape throughout the fall and winter. This comes after they’ve already returned to their respective schools, ramped up activity and gotten a chance to be on campus before their student body counterparts. They’ve seen how a season could potentially work with safety protocols in place and understand the gravity of their decisions moving forward. If the past few days have made anything clear, it’s that most coaches and players not only want to play — as seen by the numerous tweets and hashtag #WeWantToPlay — but feel confident in their program’s abilities to buy in and take responsibility for the health and well-being of their teams.
If anything, these players are safer playing football than not. And yes, that’s the first and only time you’ll hear that.
Here’s the kicker though, Scott said that the Pac-12 will allow schools to continue practicing up to 20 hours per week for mandatory team activities. So which one is it? If playing football is such a steep risk, then why are teams still meeting this frequently? The travel component of a potential season plays a large part in the safety concerns, but if each team adheres to the same strict guidelines, that would help ensure safety across the board.
The athletes are a part of a program that requires them to test negative for COVID-19 on a frequent basis and, in most cases, provides them the means to do so. Just look at Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh’s statement. The letter referenced the program’s low rate of positive tests since mid-June, a staggering 11 out of 893. It’s not perfect, but for an operation of that magnitude, it’s pretty good.
There will undoubtedly be spikes across the country when students return to campus, but these programs have time to implement strict regulations to prevent a team-wide outbreak.
If football season gets postponed until spring, on the other hand, I’m not so sure. Although a lot can happen in a few months (see months March through July) I tend to think, barring a miraculous vaccine, that things are more likely to worsen than improve. Students will return from their extended mid-year breaks, assuming they’re allowed to return at all, and most will be ready to get back out there and socialize after what looks poised to be a bleak winter.
This doesn’t even take into consideration the effect this all has on players who plan to, or may have the opportunity to, turn pro. Former Ohio State head coach Urban Meyer, who has his fair share of experience sending players to the NFL, confessed his skepticism on a spring season to Yahoo Sports, stating, “I don’t know if I’d advise a guy to play a spring season before going to the NFL draft.”
Not only would the season potentially conflict with the pre-draft process, but say a highly-touted player comes down with the virus at some point during the season, that doesn’t just put their season in jeopardy, but their future career. With the latest news revolving around the potential long-term heart issues stemming from COVID-19, I tend to think guys who haven’t had it are a safer bet as pros. It’s a harsh and perhaps unfair outlook, but we’re talking about the NFL here, where one ill-timed injury can end in a player’s release.
The prospect of a spring season is certainly an enticing question, but it’s far from the most important.
What happens now to the players that decided to return for one final season to boost their draft stock? What about the surefire draftees, do they even risk playing? What do incoming freshman players do without the normal schedule? How do players stay in shape and healthy while fighting against a virus the likes of which we’ve never seen? Can players be assured scholarships if they choose to opt out of a potential spring season? If said athletes do participate in a spring season, will they be subjected to another season that coming fall? A bevy of questions now plague decision makers.
When a group of Pac-12 football players penned a letter to Scott just over a week ago stating demands for the upcoming season, many gawked at the outlandish nature of some of the requests. Among those requests, however, was a blueprint. A blueprint to make things work this fall, albeit with some significant logistical planning.
Their plan includes the adoption of several policies that would help ensure player safety not only for this year, but for the foreseeable future as well, even after their playing days end.
They asked for the option to opt out without losing athletic eligibility or a spot on a roster and they demanded a void in COVID-19 agreements that waive liability. Finally, the coalition voiced the need for player-approved health and safety standards which would be enforced by a third party to “address COVID-19, as well as serious injury, abuse and death.”
College football can’t adapt to a bubble like the NBA; it’s just too massive of an operation. But if players and coaches feel safer within their programs, let them play. Give them opportunities to opt out, whether they choose to for health reasons or to train for the draft. Give them able healthcare resources, including testing. But most of all give them security, and for the first time in months give them routine, certainty and something to look forward to after months of regimented safety protocols and hard work.
The Pac-12’s decision is a safe one. Nobody wants to be held liable if and when a team harbors an outbreak. But who’s liable when students return in the fall and college campuses become viral cesspits? That’s a risky roll of the dice.
It’s backwards. If you’re worried about the health of the student athletes, why not show that same level of precaution towards the students themselves. You can take classes online. You can’t play football online. If you have to choose between one or the other, bring back the moneymaker. Nothing boosts a school’s finances more than football and that’s not even taking into account the overwhelming positive effects it has on Eugene’s businesses and economy.
The University of Oregon boasts just under 25,000 undergraduate students a year. Only 600 of those are athletes. You do the math.
College football is the only multi-billion dollar business without a leader. It’s time for that to change. There must be unified decision making and accountability, and fast. These athletes deserve answers. They deserve a plan.
