Printing a Post - If there is no Ivy basketball season next year

Select "print" from your browser's "File" menu.

Back to Post

Username	Post: If there is no Ivy basketball season next year
ivyrules Freshman Posts 19	05-01-20 12:45 PM - Post#306878 Let's hope this question is moot. But if there is no season, which programs are hurt most and which if any are helped? Perhaps the same question, which programs are slated to be peaking with talent and excelling next year and which are expected to struggle? Would a year off hurt or help the perennial bottom feeders or usual contenders? Could there be a short-term or long-term shake up of the usual pecking order?
Go Green PhD Student Posts 1149	05-01-20 04:40 PM - Post#306883 Next season should be Dartmouth's best team in a while if intact. If the season is not played, then the losing ways will undoubtedly continue when play does resume.
Silver Maple Postdoc Posts 3778	05-01-20 05:53 PM - Post#306888 I think Yale gets hurt pretty badly. They're a very strong favorite, and will lose a lot to graduation at the end of the academic year. They'll still be pretty good the following season, but the gap with the rest of the conference should be much narrower.
Old Bear Postdoc Posts 3998	05-01-20 07:45 PM - Post#306893 IMHO, there will be BB this year. FB maybe?
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2692	05-01-20 10:01 PM - Post#306894 How strange it could be for students to have to watch their classmates play on campus on ESPN+!
james Masters Student Posts 796	05-01-20 11:42 PM - Post#306896 I agree on Yale. If they stay healthy and the forward combo can open the floor somewhat bruner style then they are pretty loaded Yess showed some nice signs last year. Alausa and Jarvis have the talent but havenâ€™t had many chances . Alausa is a senior so this is his time. Along w yess. So the combo shld be decent but not bruner I anticipate the pg role being filled by 2 returners adequately. So thatâ€™s also an if If itâ€™s played pre vaccine wld presume no crowds and a dialed down travel schedule at best
1LotteryPick1969 Postdoc Posts 2275	05-02-20 06:47 AM - Post#306901 james Said: If itâ€™s played pre vaccine Begging the question "will there be a vaccine?". Not to be overly negative (and personally still remaining optimistic), as of yet there is no vaccine for HIV, RSV (despite my own personal efforts), and Epstein-Barr virus.
Streamers Professor Posts 8258	05-02-20 08:25 AM - Post#306903 Or SARS, MERS, or any other Coronavirus for that matter - correct?
Quakers03 Professor Posts 12533	05-02-20 08:38 AM - Post#306905 HARVARDDADGRAD Said: How strange it could be for students to have to watch their classmates play on campus on ESPN+! As opposed to now when if our schools are lucky they pack the gym with upwards of 200 students?
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2692	05-02-20 09:45 AM - Post#306907 Thinking that travel makes no sense in this environment, and likely over the coming winter. If a vaccine becomes available sooner than Bill Gates suggests ("late next year"), even the WH is saying January. No way it's distributed widely for next BB season. Without attendance revenue, and in view of safety, travel should be curtailed, whether by plane or bus. How about all leagues cancel OOC shedule and start season in December/January. If we want a full schedule, just play the Ivy slate 2X or even 1.5x. That would be interesting to me.
1LotteryPick1969 Postdoc Posts 2275	05-02-20 11:45 AM - Post#306909 Streamers Said: Or SARS, MERS, or any other Coronavirus for that matter - correct? That is my understanding.
james Masters Student Posts 796	05-02-20 01:22 PM - Post#306910 Not sure on sars Had heard we had major vaccine potential but it died out bf we needed it bc ro proved to be so low So at the least this time is different as ro of Covid is higher and it went global
james Masters Student Posts 796	05-02-20 01:30 PM - Post#306911 Good news is ivy sports are hopefully affected the least structurally Power 5 in big trouble financially if there is no season. Like professional sports they have big payrolls in scholies and absurd salaries And depend on football ticket sales and contributions to finance other sports tv revs help if games are played w no crowds but if they canâ€™t get there soon look out below
james Masters Student Posts 796	05-02-20 01:33 PM - Post#306912 I am on positive on vaccine potential but not timeline You have several things going for it. You have a global war and race to get there. Massive private investment and ingenuity armed against it w all the incentive. Gates foundation completely all in on it. They arenâ€™t alone. in investing parlance shorting covid is being long global innovation ingenuity and capital arbitrage. But time is the enemy when we are discussing sports schedules.
james Masters Student Posts 796	05-02-20 01:36 PM - Post#306913 Lastly multiple ways to win short covid. Aforementioned vAccine potential + community immunity Bad news is immunity hurt by lockdowns so it is pushed out and could be can kicking if no vaccine in 18 mos
Streamers Professor Posts 8258	05-02-20 02:24 PM - Post#306915 james Said: Lastly multiple ways to win short covid. Aforementioned vAccine potential + community immunity Bad news is immunity hurt by lockdowns so it is pushed out and could be can kicking if no vaccine in 18 mos Don't rely too much on the immunity part. Corona viruses are notorious for short-lived anti-body responses. This is why we get common colds most every year and we have no vaccine yet for any of them.
james Masters Student Posts 796	05-02-20 03:48 PM - Post#306916 some encouraging signs out of South Korea this weekend on how itâ€™s hard to get twice. But itâ€™s not definitive yet of course Lockdowns likely really hurt herd immunity here. But like anything hard to know without testing Maybe 70% of us still got it and the press in North Korea research is the tipping point Who knows
james Masters Student Posts 796	05-02-20 03:48 PM - Post#306917 South Korea
palestra38 Professor Posts 32835	05-02-20 05:08 PM - Post#306924 There are 2 ways to get herd immunity. The best way is to vaccine something like 80% or more of the population and those who cannot take it benefit from herd immunity. The other way is to let the virus ravage the population, which would have resulted in something like 2 million dead here. Then you get herd immunity, but it's a really bad option.
1LotteryPick1969 Postdoc Posts 2275	05-02-20 05:39 PM - Post#306928 james Said: I am on positive on vaccine potential but not timeline You have several things going for it. You have a global war and race to get there. Massive private investment and ingenuity armed against it w all the incentive. Gates foundation completely all in on it. They arenâ€™t alone. Hmmm. Like with HIV?
james Masters Student Posts 796	05-02-20 10:12 PM - Post#306935 Sweden pursued herd immunity the hard way They are the test case. So we shall see There is no good option including bankrupting the country with massive unintended consequences including mental health I will say it again there is no good option.
james Masters Student Posts 796	05-02-20 10:22 PM - Post#306936 Like hiv? Well I donâ€™t know smart guy there are a few differences in terms of incentive structures but I would agree we havenâ€™t exactly cured or eliminated all viral effects. Hiv didnâ€™t shut down the global economy and as a ceo and in the health care field I am aware of some very encouraging developments some interesting innovation and massive capital going towards attacking the problem. It doesnâ€™t take a pie in the sky optimist to see how we might close the gap relatife to hiv treatment development decades later It also doesnâ€™t hurt that this impacts 7.8bn ppl through global lockdowns so the incentive and scope are perhaps both different. And the innovation and capital formation of these decades all help in addressing this over a reasonable time frame But sure you have no interest in any of this. And it can look clever to be cynical I have hope but no certainty. but I donâ€™t get out of bed without hope which is why I take risk and respect those who play the proverbial game
james Masters Student Posts 796	05-02-20 10:29 PM - Post#306937 I have data scientists who crunch ever number you can imagine and tweak every scenario But we still donâ€™t know the denominator and the ro while high could be so much lower than your herd immunity assumption So case studies matter like Sweden Though it pains me to say given the expense of said analysis. Doesnâ€™t matter when the inputs are flawed
penn nation Professor Posts 21212	05-02-20 10:48 PM - Post#306938 It doesn't seem like flooding the zone has worked especially well. The Netherlands tried that with disastrous consequences.
mobrien Masters Student Posts 402	05-03-20 12:37 AM - Post#306939 I've been pessimistic about what's going to happen with this new coronavirus, but I'm optimistic about getting a vaccine. There are two reasons it would be hard to generate a vaccine. The first is if the virus does a good job hiding from antibodies once you've been infected. This is why we haven't been able to develop a vaccine for HIV (and why you're never fully cured, although antivirals are now able to manage it). The second reason is if the virus mutates so rapidly that the vaccine we have one year doesn't work the next. This is why we need to get a new flu shot every year. From my understanding, though, this new coronavirus doesn't do either of these things. It actually exposes itself to antibodies so that it can spread faster in those first couple of days before you become symptomatic, and it mutates very, very slowly. I think we will get a vaccine, and I think there's a decent chance the immunity we get from it could last a lot longer than we've been willing to hope. The bigger issue is there are reports that not everyone who's gotten Covid-19 has actually developed antibodies, or at least strong levels of them. It's hard to know if that's real or just a matter of testing error, but it could make it harder to get to herd immunity even if we are able to find a vaccine that's effective for most people. I can't imagine a vaccine would be ready before the start of next basketball season. Heck, just manufacturing enough of it for everyone before the season after that would be a challenge. But we're eventually going to get there.
1LotteryPick1969 Postdoc Posts 2275	05-03-20 07:16 AM - Post#306941 james Said: But sure you have no interest in any of this. And it can look clever to be cynical Wow. Hard to take the time to respond to this. I'm leaving the basement quarantine to round in a hospital with 62 inpatient COVIDs. My boss at NIH NIAID spent his life working on a vaccine for RSV. I only spent a little over a year. I try to tincture my optimism with respect for the vagaries of mother nature and her viruses.
SRP Postdoc Posts 4914	05-03-20 03:19 PM - Post#306958 While weâ€™re going off-topic here, treatment by polyclonal antibodies derived from recovered patients shows some potential. DARPA also has a more-speculative program to inject only the mRNA needed to generate these antibodies (not a vaccine, but a temporary defense). The timeline for both of these (to have them if they turn out to work) is the end of the year. The existence of good treatments would completely change the risk-benefit calculus for the young and healthy who were unlikely to get sick in the first place. Their ability to gather would then only be constrained by the risk of their transmitting to the more-vulnerable. At that point, â€œfencing outâ€ potentially dangerous carriers from the vulnerable will become much more sensible than â€œfencing inâ€ everyone as a general measure. And, of course, if we get cheap, fairly accurate, spit-on-paper antigen tests then everything gets easier to manage.
ivyrules Freshman Posts 19	05-04-20 01:20 PM - Post#306982 I think Cornell and Columbia would benefit from a year off. I was maybe going to put Dartmouth in that category as well, but I think Go Green is right. That they are supposed to be better than usual, so it would actually hurt them. I agree with Silver Maple that no season would hurt Yale. What would it hurt or help Brown, Princeton, Penn, Harvard? Would a blown up season pave the way for a new paradigm, in which the playing field is leveled across all 8 schools if not for the longterm, for a few years at least?
ivyrules Freshman Posts 19	05-11-20 12:26 PM - Post#307190 The more I see, the less optimistic I feel about there being Ivy basketball. So many question marks. Maybe the disease will allow some Ivies, but not others, to return to campus in the fall. What's happening on Ivy campuses this entire upcoming year will likely vary from campus to campus. That variation coupled with a likely second wave in fall or winter could be a killer. Maybe there will be an attempt to have a season that has to be aborted, or maybe there will be a pre-determined shortened season with only league play, or maybe this is another lost season. If there is some type of a partial season, will our best seniors elect to finish their Ivy education but sit out and maintain eligibility for a grad season elsewhere? How many games can a senior or any player for that matter play before it officially counts as a year of eligibility used up?
Go Green PhD Student Posts 1149	05-11-20 12:48 PM - Post#307193 ivyrules Said: Maybe the disease will allow some Ivies, but not others, to return to campus in the fall. My own prediction is that if even one Ivy campus is closed, then there will not be Ivy sports. Get well soon, New York and Boston!!!
penn nation Professor Posts 21212	05-11-20 01:27 PM - Post#307201 It's not just those two locations. NJ has 140,000 confirmed cases, including 5,400 in Mercer County (Princeton) alone. CT with over 33,000 confirmed cases, including 9,200 in New Haven County (Yale) alone. RI with over 11,500 confirmed cases, including 3,100 in Providence County (Brown) alone.
SomeGuy Professor Posts 6413	05-11-20 01:38 PM - Post#307203 Normally the rule is 30% of your teamâ€™s total games. I am curious how this is applied to last year, where, even assuming a first round loss in a conference tournament and no NCAA bid, lots of teams lost at least one game. How this rule applies probably impacts a few kids close to the line. Bryce Aiken is apparently viewed as under the line, but there is an argument as to whether he would be eligible For another year (while he played less than 30% of Harvardâ€™s games, he appeared in a game past the 30% mark). Bryce Washington is in a similar boat (though I believe he needed the first round playoff game to be under 30%). These are injuries though. I donâ€™t think you can get an extra year by just leaving the team after playing a bunch of games.
mbaprof Senior Posts 345	05-11-20 08:36 PM - Post#307231 What if there are no players? I was speaking with a D3 player at an excellent school who told me he is at least taking the Fall off as he sees classes being virtual and not worth the considerable money when he can do an internship or volunteer somewhere.
ivyrules Freshman Posts 19	05-13-20 03:44 PM - Post#307317 Even if they cancelled the season with plenty of notice for players to drop out and save a year of Ivy eligibility, which I doubt will happen, I think there will be plenty of players for each Ivy to field a team.
welcometothejungle Masters Student Posts 788	05-14-20 01:14 PM - Post#307363 https://twitter.com/IvyLeague/status/1260 978969974... The league has officially announced its plans to return to Harvard as the site for the tournament next season (presuming there is a season)
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2692	05-14-20 02:49 PM - Post#307369 Awesome! I'm sure Seth, Bryce, Chris, Robert, Justin, Christian and Robert are super pumped!
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2692	05-14-20 02:52 PM - Post#307370 In a less snarky vein, I wonder how many lives Harvard saved by being the canary in the coal mine last year? Not just Ivy League, but did our cancellation influence cancellations of other conference tournaments days later? I would hold the tournament at Lavietes every year! Saves lives!
palestra38 Professor Posts 32835	05-14-20 03:18 PM - Post#307372 Undoubtedly the right decision. Few of us thought so until the NBA news came down---that was sort of like the second plane hitting the tower.
Quakers03 Professor Posts 12533	05-14-20 04:06 PM - Post#307376 The tweet that remains burned into my brain came one week after they made the call: Quote: Imagine fading Harvard It was the NBA that changed the country, but Harvard definitely saw it first.
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3585	05-14-20 04:22 PM - Post#307377 Hmmm. Harvard saw it first and cancelled the ILT while still planning to let their hockey team and other teams compete that weekend? They got it right, but it was more eventually than right away. It was a bold move to cancel but it would have much more impressive if they did it all in one shot. Leaves the impression there was more at play in the decision.
penn nation Professor Posts 21212	05-14-20 04:53 PM - Post#307378 Considering the seating capacity at Harvard, it surely does. HARVARDDADGRAD Said: In a less snarky vein, I wonder how many lives Harvard saved by being the canary in the coal mine last year? Not just Ivy League, but did our cancellation influence cancellations of other conference tournaments days later? I would hold the tournament at Lavietes every year! Saves lives!
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2692	05-14-20 05:12 PM - Post#307379 I believe Harvard pulled out of hockey shortly thereafter. Game was going to be at RPI with no fans. Remember, Harvard's push to cancel game was a result of the Biogen mess which made Cambridge a hot spot. I can see where it was initially thought that a gathering in Cambridge was uniquely impacted - ahead of the curve if you will. My extended family was in Lavietes for the final weekend vs Brown/Yale. Only one spectator was wearing a mask. Speaking of the phrase "smartest guy in the room" - and at Harvard no less! (Yes, I know Penn fans will argue that it was a pretty small room) Can't believe I didn't hear of anyone coming down with COVID-19 from that weekend. Although given that it was early March likely some did.
Quakers03 Professor Posts 12533	05-14-20 05:41 PM - Post#307380 We were certainly aware that last weekend, but no one at the Palestra was wearing a mask. The only change was that the player/kid pregame and halftime high fives were executed with elbows.
james Masters Student Posts 796	05-14-20 06:13 PM - Post#307381 Thank you for doing the work you do. Hiv is a tough analogy but in some ways a hopeful one. Having had someone close to me with a 109 deg fever just get out who was on a ventilator for 2 weeks (along with his wife) the treatment options are possible if not probable. I for one donâ€™t want anyone to go through this even it is a miracle so far! I am hopeful on a vaccine and more so on treatment but obviously itâ€™s scary and uncertain which is my point. But time , human ingenuity and capital should help arbitrage some facet of this I believe.
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2692	06-30-20 12:12 AM - Post#309740 Feeling very pessimistic, actually, sort of scared: https://apple.news/A9wTp-0LLQ86Jtq7XQ-d BTA Deputy director of CDC - who has been Interim Director of the CDC twice under Trump, says itâ€™s too late. There is way too much virus in the US to contain it. Basketball in 2020-21 may not be our major concern for much longer. Best of luck and health to you all.
weinhauers_ghost Postdoc Posts 2139	06-30-20 12:45 AM - Post#309741 HARVARDDADGRAD Said: Feeling very pessimistic, actually, sort of scared: https://apple.news/A9wTp-0LLQ86Jtq7XQ-d BTA Deputy director of CDC - who has been Interim Director of the CDC twice under Trump, says itâ€™s too late. There is way too much virus in the US to contain it. Basketball in 2020-21 may not be our major concern for much longer. Best of luck and health to you all. I echo your pessimism. Watching as new infections spike across the South, the Southwest and the West, I can't shake the feeling that MLB, the NBA and NFL are playing with fire, trying to resume or start their seasons. Players are testing positive, and there's no guarantee that the health and safety protocols being put into place will be effective enough. Everything I've read tells me we should be erring on the side of caution.
palestra38 Professor Posts 32835	06-30-20 07:43 AM - Post#309742 There is too much money in Pro Ball not to play. While a few will opt out, the leagues will just create taxi squads of extra players, so anyone who tests positive can sit out until the tests come back negative. They are going to play through it. College ball is a different story. I agree---unless something changes rapidly, i.e., vaccine or it "suddenly disappears like magic", I don't see it happening. College players interact with other students and it is not possible to have a taxi squad
penn nation Professor Posts 21212	06-30-20 09:16 AM - Post#309744 palestra38 Said: There is too much money in Pro Ball not to play. While a few will opt out, the leagues will just create taxi squads of extra players, so anyone who tests positive can sit out until the tests come back negative. They are going to play through it. Well, only up until a certain point. If you have a team (or two or three) that has a noticeable number of key players out, the taxi squad replacements are not going to allow for truly competitive matchups.
palestra38 Professor Posts 32835	06-30-20 09:32 AM - Post#309745 True, but baseball certainly played on during WW II with one armed players and a lot of military rejects. Plus, the likelihood is that players who get it will be out from 10 days to 2 weeks, and then return.
ivyrules Freshman Posts 19	06-30-20 10:27 AM - Post#309746 The disease is thriving in our country. Hard to imagine a normal season, let alone one at all. If I am a senior with potential to grad transfer to an institution that allows for a big time basketball experience and or a free year (scholarship) of grad school in an area of interest, I am certainly beginning to look around at options.
palestra38 Professor Posts 32835	06-30-20 11:29 AM - Post#309747 This is one way to make sure the college teams can play: https://nypost.com/2020/06/30/boomer-esi ason-sugge...
Streamers Professor Posts 8258	06-30-20 11:57 AM - Post#309748 That's quite a theory. They may not be actively trying to infect the kids, just letting them be careless and skimping on the preventative measures. There must be vulnerable people among coaches/staff/families though; and what if one of the kids actually dies of it? It's not the colleges have immunity from litigation. If this is true at all, it will surely blow up on them.
palestra38 Professor Posts 32835	06-30-20 12:08 PM - Post#309749 Maybe, but the odds of a college athlete dying from Covid-19 is very very small. And I think this is a pretty accurate understanding of how Big Time college athletics works.
Streamers Professor Posts 8258	06-30-20 01:23 PM - Post#309750 Let's say it is 1 in 500 if infected... there are nearly 10,000 D1A football players... assume a 50% infection rate in the locker room and on the field even with frequent testing. That's 10 dead kids.
mobrien Masters Student Posts 402	06-30-20 02:02 PM - Post#309751 I can't see how anyone is going to play any sport in the middle of an escalating epidemic. Players would inevitably get sick, their whole teams would then have to quarantine, and then what? They postpone the game? They forfeit? It'd be dumb, not to mention incredibly reckless given the very real risk that some players might suffer lasting health consequences, if not die. The idea that the NBA, for example, is going to be playing game in Florida in a month's time just seems utterly delusional. I'm not even joking, they'd be better off playing the games in New Zealand. Have all the players quarantine there for 2 weeks, have another 4 weeks of training camp, and then play the games at 1pm New Zealand time so they air in prime time on the East Coast here.
palestra38 Professor Posts 32835	06-30-20 02:50 PM - Post#309752 No it isn't. Judging from the numbers I have seen, deaths in 20 year olds without preexisting conditions is almost unheard of. Indeed, in NYC, where they have put up the numbers, there are no deaths among that age group for those known to have no underlying conditions (.03% for those for whom it is not known if they have preexisting conditions). And these generally are kids in excellent shape with no respiratory problems. So whether it comes from the team or discussed among themselves, it is a highly successful strategy (assuming that you gain immunity once exposed--something we should know by now but do not) with very little risk.
penn nation Professor Posts 21212	06-30-20 03:12 PM - Post#309754 We have since seen far different outcomes in the South and West. The hospitals now are seeing a noticeably higher proportion of younger individuals than previously. The good news, up to this point, is that relatively few of them have died...so far. But that should in no way be interpreted as a signal that it's laissez faire for young people.
palestra38 Professor Posts 32835	06-30-20 03:17 PM - Post#309755 What you and I may think really doesn't matter if they think they will have no really bad outcome and it will enable them to play without worrying about the virus during the season. Let's remember, when NY was in the heart of the pandemic, there was far less testing so in all likelihood, the prevalence of the virus among younger people was pretty much the same as it is in the South--it's just that older people are taking more precautions now.
penn nation Professor Posts 21212	06-30-20 03:23 PM - Post#309756 Agreed that there was less testing but notwithstanding the ramped up testing the current infection, transmission and hospitalization rates are nonetheless highly troubling in many of the most affected states.
Streamers Professor Posts 8258	06-30-20 03:31 PM - Post#309757 Not sure where the NYC data came from, but it was very hard for me to find mortality data broken down by age group AND the presence of pre-existing conditions. CDC reports 85 deaths to date for men in the 15-24 age bracket. There is no breakdown of pre-existing conditions.It is generally accepted that the risk is 10x for those; so that would be 8 countrywide. So, let's concede nobody dies among the players, but what about families, coaches, staff, other students they come in contact with?
penn nation Professor Posts 21212	06-30-20 03:54 PM - Post#309758 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid- 19-data-... Go to Confirmed Deaths and then click on the button that says Underlying Conditions. Right now it's unclear what to make of these data since as the chart shows there are many cases where it's uncertain if there were, in fact, underlying conditions.
palestra38 Professor Posts 32835	06-30-20 04:04 PM - Post#309759 I quoted my numbers from that. Look, again, what we believe is irrelevant--young people in good health believe, quite reasonably, that Covid-19 is not a threat to their lives. But it may be a threat to their potential livelihoods. So intentionally trying to be exposed to obtain immunity makes sense. It's a risk-reward calculation. At our ages, we are dealing with a different set of numbers.
palestra38 Professor Posts 32835	06-30-20 04:07 PM - Post#309760 "So, let's concede nobody dies among the players, but what about families, coaches, staff, other students they come in contact with?" Their thinking would be that once they are testing negative again, how can they give it to anyone? If that were not correct, the entire recommendation that anyone exposed quarantine for 14 days would be incorrect.
Streamers Professor Posts 8258	06-30-20 04:55 PM - Post#309765 what about the time period between infection and detection via the test? (forgive the 'whatabout' please)
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2692	06-30-20 05:04 PM - Post#309768 Remember, these athletes are presumably in school, taking classes, eating meals, living in dorms, etc. The result could be major epidemic, with students surviving. However, professors, staff and locals are at risk. What about when all these students head home for Thanksgiving, etc.? Last year universities decided not to become the healthcare provider and sent the kids home in March. They'll do it again in November, seem to actually be planning on it by eliminating on campus classes after that.
palestra38 Professor Posts 32835	06-30-20 05:57 PM - Post#309770 Hey--I'm with you all on this. I'm just explaining what well could be in the mind of a 20 year old football player with a Power-5 conference team.
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2692	06-30-20 07:06 PM - Post#309775 Sex?
palestra38 Professor Posts 32835	06-30-20 08:52 PM - Post#309779 Sure....and playing football to get an NFL contract. They are not mutually exclusive
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2692	07-01-20 12:06 AM - Post#309787 Both are equally dangerous, at least at this moment.
Condor PhD Student Posts 1888	07-01-20 10:20 AM - Post#309809 Unless I am reading the data incorrectly, the chances of someone dying in the 18-44 age range from COVID-19 if they contract the virus and report such is 0.34%. Of those, 96.4% have an underlying illness which can include lung disease, asthma, heart disease, a weakened immune system, obesity, diabetes, kidney disease, liver disease and cancer. For people 45 and older, 98% or more had an underlying illness. Hence, someone 18-44 had less than a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of dying from this disease if they did not have an underlying illness. Someone older than 44 had less than a 1 in 2,000,000 chance of dying from this disease if they did not have an underlying illness or condition. For those with underlying conditions, many suffer from poor lifestyle choices not the least of which is eating too much and/or poorly. Some exercise, even if it is just walking, would also help.
palestra38 Professor Posts 32835	07-01-20 11:48 AM - Post#309817 For some reason, stating this information has become controversial. For those of us who believe in a fact based dialog, and who agree that the measures to contain the virus are necessary, this explains why young people not only resent these measures, but might want to purposefully infect themselves if they think it would provide immunity.
Bryan Junior Posts 232	07-01-20 12:32 PM - Post#309822 Condor, I wasn't able to follow your conclusion on the likelihood of dying from Covid-19 for those age 18-44 with no underlying health conditions. If it's 0.34% for the combined age group and 96.4% of the deaths are for those with an underlying health condition, don't you need to know what portion of those age 18-44 have an underlying health condition to determine the chance of death for those without an underlying condition? To take an extreme (and certainly incorrect) example, if 96.4% of the population age 18-44 had an underlying condition then the risk of dying would be the same 0.34% for both those with and without an underlying condition, right? Am I missing something?
Streamers Professor Posts 8258	07-01-20 12:47 PM - Post#309825 As stated earlier - the data seems to backup the claim that the risk to athletes is negligible - any controversy lies with the potential to spread it to other students, family staff, etc.
palestra38 Professor Posts 32835	07-01-20 12:52 PM - Post#309826 Except that it appears that once you have gotten through it and test negative, you no longer can spread it. So if you get it, quarantine for 14 days, and test negative, you're ready to go for football season.
mobrien Masters Student Posts 402	07-01-20 01:09 PM - Post#309829 College students don't exist in a bubble. If they start spreading the virusâ€”and dorms and lecture halls are almost perfectly designed to do thatâ€”then a lot of older people will be at risk too: professors, janitors, and, eventually, the surrounding towns. Focusing on the mortality rate for 18 to 22 year-olds is not what we should be doing.
palestra38 Professor Posts 32835	07-01-20 01:19 PM - Post#309832 You see, this is the problem with having this discussion. I said specifically that I would not do this--but putting myself in the place of a 20 year old football player, it makes sense. By hiding the facts on just how low the mortality rate is for young healthy people, we do not present an accurate picture of why we are doing what we need to do. But in terms of that hypothetical football player, if 30 players on LSU suddenly test positive, it is reasonable to suggest that they may have done so to avoid it later https://www.si.com/college/2020/06/20/ls u-football... ANd if they are quarantined once positive, they won't pass it on. It's actually a pretty good plan, as long as no one dies---but in the story, no one has had more than mild symptoms. Is this something I would do? No. But I am not a 20 year old Big Time college football player looking at the possibility of missing a year before I get my shot at the NFL.
penn nation Professor Posts 21212	07-01-20 01:40 PM - Post#309834 I think making it a binary paradigm of dying vs not dying is also misleading. There are any number of other potential negative consequences, both short term and beyond.
Old Bear Postdoc Posts 3998	07-01-20 02:01 PM - Post#309839 Interesting piece in today's WSJ from Provost and Pres. of Cornell.
palestra38 Professor Posts 32835	07-01-20 02:04 PM - Post#309840 Yes, but not to them.
Streamers Professor Posts 8258	07-01-20 02:10 PM - Post#309841 palestra38 Said: Except that it appears that once you have gotten through it and test negative, you no longer can spread it. We have been over this before. There is a 'spread window' that begins with infection and ends with detection. You would have to put the entire team in quarantine and only release them once they contract it and get over it. Even then, it is not established that one cannot spread the virus after infection and recovery. It is only hoped that you develop immunity yourself. In other words, the 'herd' would have to be penned up indefinitely.
penn nation Professor Posts 21212	07-01-20 02:10 PM - Post#309842 That is not necessarily true.
Condor PhD Student Posts 1888	07-01-20 02:15 PM - Post#309843 Bryan Said: Condor, I wasn't able to follow your conclusion on the likelihood of dying from Covid-19 for those age 18-44 with no underlying health conditions. If it's 0.34% for the combined age group and 96.4% of the deaths are for those with an underlying health condition, don't you need to know what portion of those age 18-44 have an underlying health condition to determine the chance of death for those without an underlying condition? To take an extreme (and certainly incorrect) example, if 96.4% of the population age 18-44 had an underlying condition then the risk of dying would be the same 0.34% for both those with and without an underlying condition, right? Am I missing something? Hello Bryan, I was not trying to extrapolate from the numbers to make conclusions about oneâ€™s chances of infection and death for the total population. However, 96.4% of confirmed deaths in NYC in the age range of 18-44 did have underlying conditions. In the older groups, the percentage was higher. The numbers suggest that healthy individuals, i.e. those who do not suffer from an underlying health conditions, have a significant probability for survival if infected with the covid-19 virus regardless of age. It also suggests that those with underlying conditions need to be especially diligent in their efforts to socially distance themselves, and others need to be respectful of the potential danger they could inflict on this group if they do not practice good protocol.
penn nation Professor Posts 21212	07-01-20 02:37 PM - Post#309848 Condor: The main drawback is the rather substantial number of cases from the NYC stats where we simply don't know the status of potential underlying conditions. So the answer, at least for now, is that we just don't know.
palestra38 Professor Posts 32835	07-01-20 02:48 PM - Post#309850 It really wasn't that substantial and it is probable that the unknowns did have pre-existing risk factors. Now by this time, it is inexcusable that we don't have the numbers down cold, but that's what we are dealing with. One thing I can tell you from hearing from young people (under 35) in New York is that none of them know of anyone who suffered anything worse than flu-like symptoms and the vast majority either had very minor or no symptoms at all. While we need to protect those in vulnerable groups, there is virtually no fear of severe consequences in this group.
Mike Porter Postdoc Posts 3618	07-01-20 03:13 PM - Post#309855 Old Bear Said: Interesting piece in today's WSJ from Provost and Pres. of Cornell. The article from yesterday was very interesting! Basic premise is that kids are going back to school at Cornell if government allows it. They say 50% of students are saying they are coming back to Ithaca regardless, and that they have some modeling to show that this is a better alternative than just virtual class because it will involve rigorous testing and tracking on campus versus. If virtual class one, there will be no testing or training and will have kids hanging out anyway. Obviously Ithaca is different from Philly, but still interesting premise.
Bryan Junior Posts 232	07-01-20 04:57 PM - Post#309869 Condor, thanks for the clarification. I agree each healthy individual 18-44 has a high chance of surviving covid-19 infection. I just couldn't get to the one in a million figure.
Quakers03 Professor Posts 12533	07-07-20 07:12 PM - Post#310106 How come no one wants to talk about the fact that we truly have no idea what this virus does to people down the line? Sure these young people might not die, but how does a lifetime of lung issues sound? What does that do to their livelihood?
rbg Postdoc Posts 3058	07-07-20 08:33 PM - Post#310117 I agree with Quakers03. Thanks for mentioning this.
ivyrules Freshman Posts 19	07-09-20 01:07 PM - Post#310190 So what do you do now as a basketball player (or any winter sport player) in the Ivies? Do you withdraw for the year and aim to return to the team the year after next? Do you sit out athletically and complete your degree and then grad transfer to use that extra year of eligibility elsewhere? Or do you move forward, knowing that, at best, you might if lucky, get 14 league games in starting in Jan?
ivyrules Freshman Posts 19	07-09-20 01:11 PM - Post#310191 How would you advise your son or daughter at this point? I don't think there is a right or wrong answer, but I think I would advise my kid to just go for it. Stick with your school and team, with hopes there is a partial season. Because who knows what the future holds and you have to move forward...
bradley PhD Student Posts 1842	07-12-20 07:04 PM - Post#310267 I believe that a fair number of the better players in the league who have hopes of playing at the next level, including Europe, may sit out a year of BB, attend school and then be a grad transfer student. Someone like Llewellyn crosses my mind. IL rules are so antiquated and absurd that it may encourage this approach.
palestra38 Professor Posts 32835	07-12-20 07:54 PM - Post#310268 Indeed they are, but one thing that wouldn't change is that the Ivies are not going to offer grad school scholarships, nor guarantee admissions on a preference to some of the top grad schools in the nation. So who wants to stay and pay their way when other schools are offering a free ride, even assuming they can get into programs where only 5% or so of applicants are admitted?


Copyright © 2004-2012 Basketball U. Terms of Use for our Site and Privacy Policy are applicable to you. All rights reserved. Basketball U. and its subsidiaries are not affiliated in any way with any NCAA athletic conference or member institution.

FusionBB™ Version 2.1 | ©2003-2007 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.185 seconds. Total Queries: 15 Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 05:33 AM
Top