Jump to content

Draft/OTA's/Training Camp/Season Covid-19


Recommended Posts

NFL reportedly intends to give all players the choice to sit out the entire 2020 season

It looks like NFL players are going to have the option of sitting out the entire season

John Breech
 
 
19 hrs ago
 

As the calendar continues to inch closer to the NFL regular season, the league is still trying to figure out how to solve multiple problems related to the coronavirus pandemic, and one of the biggest issues right now is whether players will be giving the option of sitting out the season if they don't feel comfortable putting their health at risk. 

 

After several weeks of negotiations between the NFL and NFLPA, it appears the two sides have come to an agreement on the idea of letting players opt out. According to NFL.com, the league and the union intend to give the players the option to sit out, which is potentially huge because it means that any player on any team could choose to skip the 2020 season without facing any sort of penalty. 

 

The opt-out could add an interesting twist to the season, especially if someone's starting quarterback decides not to play. 

 

Under the plan developed by the NFL and NFLPA, there really wouldn't be any strict guidelines with the opt-out. Any player who has a pre-existing condition would be allowed to sit out. Players who have family members with pre-existing conditions would be allowed to sit out. Also, any player who has any concerns about playing during a pandemic would also be allowed to sit out, which would open the door for pretty much any player to sit out the season. 

 

Before the opt-out goes into effect, several things still have to be figured out. One big one is when players would have to opt out by. According to NFL.com, general managers around the league were told this week that the opt-out will come with a hard deadline. Although the date for that deadline hasn't been set, any player who wants to sit out 2020 would have to declare themselves out before the deadline. 

 

The other big question is how teams will handle the contract of any player who decides to sit out. One option would be to have the contract basically stay the same with everything moving forward one year -- but no decisions have been made. 

 

The NFL and NFLPA are also currently negotiating the protocols that players will have to follow at training camp and during the preseason, and you can read more about that by clicking here. One big thing the NFLPA is hoping to get is the cancellation of the entire preseason. 

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-reportedly-intends-to-give-all-players-the-choice-to-sit-out-the-entire-2020-season/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, UncleEarl said:

This.

 

The athletics budget of the vast majority of division 1 schools is paid for by football and basketball.  No football and basketball and let the bloodletting begin in the athletic programs.  Most athletic budgets are separate from the academic budgets, so to dip into endowment, etc. would be a big problem at most institutions.  The Ivies don't give athletic scholarships, so their situation is quite different.  I can tell you that kids that play non-revenue D1 sports are very nervous right now.

 

Stanford announced they are dropping 11 sports after the upcoming school year. Wrestling and Field Hockey were listed on ESPN, not sure what the others are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to JJ's comments,  all over the place as to opinions:

 

"NCAA chief medical officer Brian Hainline recently told The Athletic that “every single person on that sideline should be wearing a mask or a face shield.”

 

Dr. Scott Frank, an associate professor in Case Western Reserve University’s school of medicine, agrees. However, he does not share the concerns of the Big Ten coaches and athletic trainers referenced by Kratochvil. He instead cited long distance runner Galen Rupp, a two-time Olympic medalist who has worn a mask during races to help combat allergies.

 

Frank said it would be “tragic” if the NCAA does not universally require masks and face shields this fall.

 

“Anyone who believes you can’t compete while wearing a mask doesn’t want to wear a mask,” Frank said. “There is no question masks can be designed that would be protective to football players and not in the intrusive way surgical masks would be.”

 

Frank also offered as evidence countless videos from NFL Films and elsewhere of players’ ice breath cutting through face coverings pulled up over their noses during games"

----------------------------------

Duane Carlisle says it’s not that easy. Currently the fitness coach for NFL officials, Carlisle previously served as head strength and conditioning coach with the San Francisco 49ers and Director of Sports Performance at Purdue.

 

He said players often do not keep those coverings over their nose and mouth while actually in games during cold weather. Those are also worn on a voluntary basis by players who have complete discretion as to their usage.

 

Carlisle is concerned about what wearing masks during a 90-yard drive means for the biggest players on both sides of the ball.

 

“It restricts your air flow,” Carlisle said of the currently available masks. “Any time your air flow is restricted, given the game’s intensity level, your body’s going to demand more oxygen. If you’ve got a mask on that restriction could be problematic, particularly when you have large bodies — offensive linemen and defensive linemen.”

 

Problem is, those linemen — the ones who engage in constant face-to-face battle throughout a game — need those face coverings most of all.

 

Kratochvil remains optimistic that solutions to this and other obstacles can be found.

 

“There’s a lot we’re learning each and every day,” Kratochvil said. “A month from now we’ll know a tremendous amount more than we know at this time.”

 

https://www.cleveland.com/osu/2020/07/do-ohio-state-and-other-college-football-teams-need-masks-to-practice-and-play-during-covid-19.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sparky151 said:

 

Stanford announced they are dropping 11 sports after the upcoming school year. Wrestling and Field Hockey were listed on ESPN, not sure what the others are.

Several schools in NC have dropped programs as well.  The hit to the budget of just not putting butts in the stadium will be enough to lead to this.  Title 9 plays a role as well.  Can't cut much on the women's side as they have to make up for the 85 football scholarships. 

 

Frankly, I'm not sure why lower level D1 schools don't dump football in general.  I would say it costs them far more than the money it brings in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morning sports update: Mohamed Sanu has a question about the NFL’s COVID-19 protocols

By
 
Hayden Bird, Boston.com Staff
July 10, 2020 | 9:33 AM

 

 

Mohamed Sanu’s critique of NFL procedures: On Thursday, NFL Network reporter Tom Pelisssero revealed some of the potential league protocols for limiting player contact during the 2020 season.

With the ongoing threat of COVID-19, the NFL will potentially forbid players from standing within than six feet of each other after games, and ban jersey swapping.

NFL teams will be forbidden from postgame interactions within 6 feet of each other and jersey exchanges between players will be prohibited during the 2020 season, sources say. Another way the NFL will look different in the COVID-19 world.

Pelissero added in a follow-up tweet that the procedures are “still a work in progress,” but the subject created some humorous reactions.

Patriots receiver Mohamed Sanu was among those to consider the ramifications of social distancing in an NFL season, pointing out one of the fundamental challenges of football during a pandemic.


“So is everyone going no-huddle this year or [what]?” Sanu tweeted.

 

Managing COVID-19 risks during a football season will be a difficult situation for the NFL. Many aspects of the league’s usual policy — including the preseason schedule — have been called into question. Time is also beginning to run out for the league’s decision-makers, with training camps customarily scheduled to start at the end of July.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NFL reveals football helmet mouth shields to prevent COVID-19 spread

According to ESPN, there is currently no mandate for players to wear the protective shield, however the NFL’s medical experts are advocating its use.

 

The shields have already been distributed to the Los Angeles Rams and Los Angeles Chargers for feedback, according to the ESPN report. That report mentions the two biggest concerns about the shields so far are visibility and breathability.

 

Most importantly, the NFL's engineering committee Dr. Jeff Crandall told ESPN that the shields prevent direct transmission of droplets from players’ mouths.

 

Per the report, Oakley tested the shields by spraying fluid particles to mimic droplets expelled by players.

 

"I don't know that there's a direct percentage that anyone's come up with because a laboratory is not the on-field environment, obviously," Crandall told ESPN. "There's lots of things that players do on the fields that they're not easily replicating [in] the laboratory, but it is a significant blockage to transmission of droplets. There is no straight pathway through the face shield or visor for a droplet to be transmitted."

 

While Oakley is the official supplier of the shields for the NFL, the report mentions that players may end up other brands that are developing similar products.

 

"Just like everything we do, whether we're talking about better cleats or better performing helmets, it's all about something that's safer and yet also protects and in many cases enhances performance," Dr. Allen Sills, the NFL's chief medical officer, told ESPN. "That's the same mantra and the same sort of approach that we're taking here. I'm really pleased with how the work is going along.

 

“We're not at a finished product yet. Like most things in health safety, there's really no finish line here. So we're hoping to continue to innovate and improve as we go along. But we're excited about where we are and excited about the potential role this may play in risk mitigation on the field."

 

r718713_1296x729_16-9.jpg&w=570&format=j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One group of players has clear opt-out rights for 2020: Unsigned draft picks

As the NFL and NFL Players Association discusses the rules, regulations, and circumstances that would apply to players who choose not to play in 2020, one group of players has an undeniable right to opt out of the coming season: Players currently not under contract.

 

More specifically for these purposes, rookie draft picks who have yet to sign contracts can choose not to sign contracts while they monitor the overall pandemic and the NFL’s handling of it. They also can choose to not sign at all for 2020, sitting out the full season and re-entering the draft in 2021.

 

As of Friday, fewer than a third of all draft picks had signed contracts. Only 25 percent, including Lions cornerback Jeff Okudah, have agreed to terms. To date, the delay has been attributed largely to teams that have had no real urgency to get players under contract. As training camp looms, however, it makes sense to pay attention to the possibility that one or more players — especially those with first-round talent — will opt to skip the season due to concerns about the pandemic and to try it again in 2021.

 

Alternatively, the unsigned rookies, particularly the first-round picks, could attempt to secure specific terms that would give them more flexibility in deciding whether to skip the season with only their 2020 base salary forfeited (typically, the rookie minimum) and no other financial consequences. If, for example, the NFL ultimately concludes that a final decision must be made before training camp, unsigned rookies could attempt to negotiate a different deadline, or perhaps the ability to choose to press pause if they become uncomfortable, with the ability to remain on the roster and to return whenever they choose.

 

There’s a chance teams will refuse to even entertain such discussions, but the players hold the ultimate leverage: Give me flexibility and protection on this point, or I simply won’t sign at all.

 

At this point, there’s no reason for any unsigned draft pick to rush to sign a contract that doesn’t give them appropriate protections in the event they decide to stop playing or at a minimum to take a break in the event of an outbreak. Indeed, there’s a strong argument to be made for waiting to sign anything until the first few weeks of training camp have unfolded, in order to ensure that safe and appropriate protocols have been implemented and are working before entering that environment.

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/07/13/one-group-of-players-has-clear-opt-out-rights-for-2020/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coronavirus surge means once again politicians can put halt to NFL's bullish plans

Call it a retreat on the reopening. 

 

Or call it a concern going forward for the NFL – and Major League Baseball – who may be able to draw up plans and procedures for a 2020 season, but can’t guarantee how the virus will behave or how local governments with the power to stop just about everything will react to it. 

 

The NFL training camps are expected to open later this month and the regular season is set to begin on Sept. 10. If there is one thing this pandemic has proven it’s that predicting anything two weeks out, let alone two months, is dangerous. Things ebb and flow. Places that were once safe are now hot spots. And vice versa. 

 

Back in April, in the early days of this, the executive officer of Santa Clara County (home to the San Francisco 49ers) said he didn’t expect “any sports games until at least Thanksgiving, and we’d be lucky to have them by Thanksgiving.”

 

That prediction hasn’t held as the 49ers and every other NFL team are currently green-lit to play. However, it highlighted the challenges of trying to stage a normal season. Can a single county, or a single outbreak in a single market, upend everything? 

 

Maybe you could deal with one. Maybe. What if it’s three? Will the playing of a season not be the decision of commissioner Roger Goodell but rather a fairly unknown county commissioner somewhere? Or would no elected official risk the wrath of being the person that shut down the NFL?

 

No one knows. No one ever knows with this thing. 

 

The NBA and NHL have gone the bubble route in an attempt to complete their 2019-2020 seasons. Basketball is in Orlando. Hockey went to Canada (Edmonton and Toronto) where the virus is far less prevalent than the States. Those leagues can control a lot of things. If the bubble holds, then they’ll be successful.

 

Football can’t do that. The idea of a safe zone for 32 massive NFL operations running from late July training camp to a February Super Bowl is impossible. 

 

Same for MLB, which is slated to begin on July 25 and especially college football, which at its highest level is played by 130 teams in 43 states in communities ranging from L.A. to Laramie. 

 

“It is clear that current circumstances related to COVID-19 must improve,” said SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, arguably the sport’s most influential person, about the prospect of a season. 

 

Already the Big Ten and Pac-12 have cut their schedules to only nine conference games. Those decisions were made by the schools themselves, not local officials. That might change.

 

No one has cancelled anything yet. Everyone is barreling toward a season with the best intentions of normalcy. Yet pessimism sits on the horizon. An influential NFL agent told Yahoo Sports he expects the season to last 6-10 games before the patchwork of decision-making becomes untenable. It’s just an informed prediction, though. 

 

What’s clear is that whatever the NFL’s plans are, they can be upended by state and county politicians who are reacting to localized circumstances that don’t care about national television contracts.

 

That leaves the NFL to attempt what amounts to a seven-month slog (training camp to Super Bowl) dealing not just the back-and-forth of a pandemic, but the whims and opinions of politicians who don’t answer to them.

 

What the past couple weeks have shown is that what’s open today isn’t always what will be open tomorrow. 

 

Buckle up.

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/coronavirus-surge-means-once-again-politicians-can-put-halt-to-nf-ls-bullish-plans-171902665.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFLPA wants to eliminate the NFL’s preseason, has concerns about opening training camp in coronavirus hotspots, and here’s why

Updated Jul 15, 2020; Posted Jul 15, 2020
 

The NFL Players Association is concerned about opening training camp in states that are considered hotspots for the coronavirus.

 

That’s what NFLPA general counsel Tom DePaso said on a Zoom conference call with agents on Wednesday afternoon, a person familiar with the call told NJ Advance Media. DePaso cited current situations in California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, Louisiana and, to a lesser extent, Tennessee and Georgia.

 

“We see that we have new hotspots around the country. We all see it,” DePaso said, NJ Advance Media learned. “These are all places where our players will be asked to return to start training camp and to that end we obviously are very concerned.”

 

The league is meeting with medical experts to meet and discuss whether a return in those areas will be safe.

 

The NFLPA is also pushing for no preseason games, while the league continues to push for a two-game preseason schedule.

 

“No clear reasoning for having them,” DePaso told agents on Wednesday’s call. “A dry run for a regular season game is really not good enough for putting a player at greater risk. The players understand they are at higher risk and they want to mitigate it as much as they can.

 

They understand they can’t eliminate it but they feel it’s not worth it for those (preseason games)… the most important part of the season are the regular season games and playoff games.”

 

Other topics discussed included possible reduced training camp rosters, proposed masks being used on helmets, whether COVID-19 will be viewed as a football injury as well as player opt-outs.

 

Here are some takeaways about what was discussed, including expanded practice squads:

 

- Training camp won’t start until every team submits their plan for training camp to the league and NFLPA and it is approved.

 

“To date we haven’t received those back yet,” DePaso said, NJ Advance Media learned.

 

Until then, players can’t return to facilities in groups greater than 20.

 

- There is a chance training camp rosters are reduced. Reports have indicated that they could go from 90 to 80 players, maybe less.

 

“There are pros and cons but we are living in a pandemic,” DePaso told agents, NJ Advance Media learned. “There is a good case to be made for fewer players being brought to training camp. It cuts down on interaction. Less people, less risk.”

 

There have been no final decisions made on that.

 

https://www.nj.com/giants/2020/07/the-nflpa-wants-to-eliminate-the-nfls-preseason-has-concerns-about-opening-training-camp-in-coronavirus-hotspots-and-heres-why.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2020 at 2:05 PM, UncleEarl said:

Notre Dame right now.  Like they care.  Probably the wealthiest athletic department in the country.

 

MEET MY MOM - YouTube

Actually, Texas, Texas A&M, Ohio State and Michigan make more money.   Don’t kid yourself, you can’t make TV money if you don’t have games to play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, SF2 said:

Actually, Texas, Texas A&M, Ohio State and Michigan make more money.   Don’t kid yourself, you can’t make TV money if you don’t have games to play. 

But if football is cut they are state institutions and will struggle with money.  Notre Dame has no such issues.  They can get their money from wherever they want.  If OSU, Michigan, etc. touch that endowment there will be screaming.  No such issues at ND.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UncleEarl said:

But if football is cut they are state institutions and will struggle with money.  Notre Dame has no such issues.  They can get their money from wherever they want.  If OSU, Michigan, etc. touch that endowment there will be screaming.  No such issues at ND.

You think the Alumni are going to shower the athletic department with money because there is no football?   That is hilarious.  The Alumni give money to gain access, get the best seats and to get great parking spots for tailgates not to help out a brother.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SF2 said:

You think the Alumni are going to shower the athletic department with money because there is no football?   That is hilarious.  The Alumni give money to gain access, get the best seats and to get great parking spots for tailgates not to help out a brother.  

Not at all.  I think private schools have more flexibility with their money than public schools.  No one will say squat to ND if they take some money from the endowment.  If state schools try to do that there will be issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, UncleEarl said:

Not at all.  I think private schools have more flexibility with their money than public schools.  No one will say squat to ND if they take some money from the endowment.  If state schools try to do that there will be issues.

Actually, no University can use its endowment for non academic reasons to include helping out the sports teams.  Doing so would be considered embezzlement.   Alumni associations and athletic boosters fill that role.  
 

Believe it or not most of the wealthiest alumni from Notre Dame did not play football.  Far more money is donated to the General endowment or individual schools like the school of medicine or engineering than the football team.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SF2 said:

Actually, no University can use its endowment for non academic reasons to include helping out the sports teams.  Doing so would be considered embezzlement.   Alumni associations and athletic boosters fill that role.  
 

Believe it or not most of the wealthiest alumni from Notre Dame did not play football.  Far more money is donated to the General endowment or individual schools like the school of medicine or engineering than the football team.   

I do not understand how using university funds (endowment) for university functions, which includes athletics, would be embezzlement.  I would like to read that law.  Public universities would have to answer to politicians and taxpayers. 

 

Oh, and thanks for the TED talk on university giving.  I had no idea that Notre Dame's $13B endowment was more than what their athletic department had.  :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...