Will we have a 2020 NFL Season?

[Deleted member 6794]

I have a lot of confidence that the season will play out. I’m of the opinion, if a few games out of the 256 scheduled don’t get played, so what. It used to be fairly common that a couple of MLB rainouts would not get rescheduled. The NFL used to play a 14 game schedule. If the league had to adapt and scale it back to 14, so what. It doesn’t make the season illegitimate in any way.

I would be fine with teams playing only 13 games this season facing division opponents only once.

In my opinion it would get tricky if teams end up with a different amount of games or opponents played within the division though.

 

[PikeBadger]

Changing clothes in the garage when you get home, wiping your groceries with disinfectant wipes, leaving your mail set for a week in the garage before opening. I am a member of a different board with multiple posters that do all of these. Some work from home or are retired and have everything delivered. One posted she ventured out a few weeks ago to the doctor. First time she's left her residence since March.

I feel sorry for these people that are so paralyzed by fear of this situation and have taken it to such extremes. I know people like this too. It’s a sad existence, not life.

 

[gopkrs]

I feel sorry for these people that are so paralyzed by fear of this situation and have taken it to such extremes. I know people like this too. It’s a sad existence, not life.

I agree except for those especially older people with health problems. I could see where they might take the situation very seriously.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I feel sorry for these people that are so paralyzed by fear of this situation and have taken it to such extremes. I know people like this too. It’s a sad existence, not life.

I feel sorry for the ppl who have suffered because ppl haven't taken it seriously enough. Downside to your "fear filled" ppl is that they spend an extra 10 minutes a day getting clean. Downside to ignoring health advice...200k+ dead.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I would be fine with teams playing only 13 games this season facing division opponents only once.

First, Welcome back.

I agree that the NFL might have been a bit over zealous with thinking they could get a full season in, I hope they prove me wrong. I also look around at both the NFL and College stadiums and the allowed attendances. Amazing how some organizations seem to have put money over safety.

 

[GleefulGary]

First, Welcome back.

I agree that the NFL might have been a bit over zealous with thinking they could get a full season in, I hope they prove me wrong. I also look around at both the NFL and College stadiums and the allowed attendances. Amazing how some organizations seem to have put money over safety.

The entirety of the NFL is money over safety. You want real safety? Then football should be over.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

First, Welcome back.

Thanks a lot.

I agree that the NFL might have been a bit over zealous with thinking they could get a full season in, I hope they prove me wrong.

Actually I was pretty optimistic the NFL could pull it off entering the season. I have some doubts about it now after they had to postpone two games as early as in week 4.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I would be fine with teams playing only 13 games this season facing division opponents only once.

In my opinion it would get tricky if teams end up with a different amount of games or opponents played within the division though.

Ditto on the welcome back.

The NFL will play as many games as protocols will allow. If one team gets through 16 games and another only 10, so shall it be. And if a team has to play with a dozen starters sitting out, so shall it be.

As far as I can tell, the NFL has not issued guidance on how playoff qualification and seeding will determined with an unbalanced schedule. That would be in true NFL rule making fashion, closing the barn door after the cow gets out in the corn. We should expect a set of rules once a game is outright cancelled--maybe. We should get them before it happens.

I really don't see much of an issue with playoff qualification and seeding going by winning percentage. If one team is 3-2 in the division and another 3-3 and it comes down to tiebreaker, so be it. In the great scheme of things it's not something that should get anybody in twist provided they spell it out in advance. Of course fans of that 3-3 team will find a reason to wail and moan but that's par for the course with any perceived injustice, real or imagined.

The question would be if a minimum number of games played would be required to qualify for the playoffs and what that number should be. It would probably be a moot point point anyway. A team missing a whole mess of games is likely to be short a bunch of players in the ones they do play, filling in from off the practice squad. Positive tested players can be out of action for 10 days or longer if they continue to test positive, longer if they continue to show symptoms.

Still, the question should be considered--should an 8-0 or 6-4 team be a playoff team if it comes to that? The sooner the NFL answers that question the sooner everybody is on notice. If the NFL waits until after a game is outright cancelled they will be rightly open to accusations of picking winners and losers.

 

[Poppa San]

I expect it all to shut down near the end of Oct for 2-3 weeks. Too many "name" players or skeleton teams playing. Probably reschedule 1 week of marquee makeup games then resume the schedule near Thanksgiving. Do doubt fan filled stadiums until some playoff games. Might be some token several thousand but that's it.

 

[Poppa San]

As for the person who has not ventured out since March that might be prudent if she was in a high risk category, say cardiopulmony disease or any immune deficiency or any number of things.

germaphobe. Early 60's real life Arkansas hillbilly. Hog hunting, still running, deep woods living, gun totin' husband.

I hope they have heated garages come winter.

Most live west coast.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Actually I was pretty optimistic the NFL could pull it off entering the season. I have some doubts about it now after they had to postpone two games as early as in week 4.

I will give those involved a lot of credit in trying to make this happen and in doing so, I recognize that they are getting paid a lot of money to do so. I find it ironic that they are all being asked to basically live their lives in as tight of a bubble as they can, so that they can entertain quite a number of people that aren't willing to make the same sacrifices for others around them. Even more ironic and sad, many of those people don't even recognize their own responsibilities in all of this. As long as teams don't hold any press conference in Rose Gardens after the games, maybe they will have some success.

 

[AKCheese]

I love the people who lamment that it’s been going on too long, has been too hard, they’re tired of it... glad they weren’t around for WWII. Stupid SHOULD be painful, and that’s playing out for this country, and will eventually for the NFL. All the resources being expended on this frivolity SHOULD be diverted to a national effort to get this thing under control... but we don’t have one so... might as well pee them away on games and a season that in the end won’t (imo) mean much. At some point we’ll stumble out of the carnage, it’s a pity we as a nation can’t be smarter but intelligence, education and science has been mocked and disregarded by a significant minority and that’s been enough to drag the rest of us down with them. Stay smart... stay safe!!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Ditto on the welcome back.

Ditto on the thanks a lot.

As far as I can tell, the NFL has not issued guidance on how playoff qualification and seeding will determined with an unbalanced schedule.

The NFL hasn't published any information about playoff seeding in case games will be cancelled. I would prefer them to use a balanced scheduled even if games need to be canceled and as far as I can tell every team playing division opponents only once would be the only way to achieve that.

Of course the NFL would have to decide on that pretty fast with the Packers for example playing the Vikings for the second time in week 8.

I expect it all to shut down near the end of Oct for 2-3 weeks. Too many "name" players or skeleton teams playing.

I'm not sure that will happen. For example they will play the Chiefs vs. Patriots game tomorrow even with Newton missing it.

 

[Dantés]

I think there's sufficient evidence that it's a good idea. You can't go by the WHO; they only recently concluded Covid-19 might be an airborne virus.

As the Mayo Clinic advises, even ordinary non-surgical cloth masks will trap some droplets on the part of both the giver and receiver potentially reducing viral loads in those who come in contact.

The viral load theory is not proven with repect to Covid-19, however immune response to viral infections in general adheres to that theory--the fewer and smaller the viral particles the immune system has to fight off the better job it will do. You can wait around to get some definitive study demonstrating that Covid-19 does or does not adhere to this theory but you'll be waiting a long time. It would be unethical to run a controlled test. If the viral load theory did not hold that would be rather unique in the behavior of immune response so reasonable precautions are in order.

It's a risk/reward proposition. What's the risk in wearing a mask when in public? An inconvience? A minor discomfort? Steamed up glasses at times? Some folks with breathing difficulties might have have an issue with it and should consider other precautions being in an at-risk category to begin with. The reward is that the viral theory holds which has a good chance of being true.

One thing we do know epidemiologically speaking: places with lax or non-existant regulations spike; those with mask wearing and distancing protocols in varying degrees up through shut downs and lockdowns show declining incidence.

Every attempt to downplay the severity of this pandemic has had to be walked back. Now we're down to parsing whether the positive affects are limited to distancing while an unproven but compelling theory is ignored?

"My American freedoms" is a ludicrous excuse for not wearing a mask. There are a million ways in which law and regulation controls one's life in untold numbers of ways one never thinks about and which are largely to one's benefit. The world and the law may also have injustices which are duly protested or taken to court. Having to wear a mask, which nobody likes, doesn't rise to the level of any meaningful protest. It's a shallow symbol of independence.

I find most of this to be eminently reasonable. I'm not an "anti-masker." While not passionately in favor of them, I will wear them where I'm required to by law or asked to by a business/organization (or even just if it makes another person more comfortable).

But where I disagree is that there's a clear correlation specifically between the masking and the reduction in incidence. The evidence there is mixed at best. Some results indicate that it helps, some that it has no effect, and some that it's actually a net negative.

The evidence is difficult to read because masking has typically followed bad outbreaks. So where there are lots of cases, lots of masking comes behind, but along with it will come lots of other measure, like distancing or lock downs, and so determining the effectiveness specifically of the mask in slowing the spread is really hard.

And that's really my point-- I get why people would support mask wearing despite the mixed evidence because the downside is minimal, or at least perceived as such. But I don't get why people would treat mask wearing as this proven intervention, which it simply isn't. You can't look around the world and say that communities/countries that mask are all doing better than those that don't. It's not anything like that clean cut.

To bring this back to the main point and the topic at hand-- if an NFL player gets covid, there are going to be certain fans and media types that will point to one instance of that player not wearing a mask or not wearing it properly and they'll say something to the effect of "see... they were asking for it." Or they'll say "Oh, they've got to tighten up the enforcement of that mask policy!" And the reality is that there just isn't a solid basis for doing that. It's people trying to feel like they have a measure of control that they really don't have.

The last thing I'll say is this-- not every attempt to downplay the severity of the virus has to be walked back. Not by a long shot. For instance, I interacted with someone the other day who had no idea that Case Fatality Rate and Infection Fatality Rate are not the same thing. They thought that 2.8% of Americans who get COVID-19 will die, because that's the CFR. The CDC estimates that somewhere between 6 and 24 times as many people have COVID than are confirmed, which would put the actual IFR anywhere from 0.47% to 0.11%.