Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 80

Thread: What Is the “Drop Dead” date for knowing if there will be a 2020-21 NCAA men’s

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,281

    Default What Is the “Drop Dead” date for knowing if there will be a 2020-21 NCAA men’s

    basketball season? Who determines? 2021-22?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TravelinZag View Post
    basketball season? Who determines? 2021-22?
    The NCAA, subject to governmental orders and input from member institutions. Safe to say that if the NCAA college football season and NFL seasons are uninterrupted college basketball will be ok. The college basketball season is no different than anything else in society that is on hold right now pending more information and decisions from our elected officials and public health professionals.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Spokane Valley
    Posts
    8,486

    Default

    Field Yates
    @FieldYates
    · 49m
    The NCAA has decided to grant athletes who compete in Spring sports an extra year of eligibility, but has decided athletes who compete in a Winter sport will not receive an extra year. So, no extra year for basketball players, but baseball, lacrosse, etc. will get an extra.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,522

    Default

    It was sad to see the basketball players leave earlier than expected, but honestly most teams had very few games left in their season, if at all. It would be chaos to give another year to them. As to the OP, I think if we don't have the economy back by September 1st, we're doomed.
    Krozman
    GU student 1996-2000
    Law Student 2000-2003

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hilton Head (Bluffton), SC
    Posts
    4,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zagdawg View Post
    Field Yates
    @FieldYates
    · 49m
    The NCAA has decided to grant athletes who compete in Spring sports an extra year of eligibility, but has decided athletes who compete in a Winter sport will not receive an extra year. So, no extra year for basketball players, but baseball, lacrosse, etc. will get an extra.
    But without ANY scholarship money!!! If memory serves, full-scholarships are not given in non-revenue sports so not sure how many GU athletes will be effected.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    671

    Default

    Gonzaga's first game is around November 1st, right? It would be an exhibition game against some local cupcake. Too early to worry about the upcoming season, but now we know Killian and the other seniors won't be around.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    7,146

    Default

    My guess would be somewhere around the 1st of October, exclusively to Basketball, but, as others have mentioned, if football isn't ready to go, and that would be early to mid August, I don't expect basketball to go on.

    My personal expectation as that, with the decrease in hospital admissions in Kirkland and western Washington, with the newly allowed, FDA approve, serology tests and portable units, that they are getting a handle on it. If people will just continue to self isolate and social distance, we should be getting closer to the peak, nationwide.
    I am, in general, an optimist.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,374

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TravelinZag View Post
    basketball season? Who determines? 2021-22?
    This is probably not a very illuminating or useful framing of the likely situation.

    Was there a "season" this year? It depends on one's definition. Most conferences didn't complete their own tournaments. There was no bracket and no NCAA or NIT Tournament.


    Next season won't likely be decided as a binary (complete all the games regardless of what happens vs cancel all games right now).

    It's hard to imagine a scenario where multiple teams don't have players and coaches infected with Covid-19 at some point. If/when a player or coach tests positive, there's no way that team would play until all players then are tested negative.

    How those likely positive tests will result in certain numbers of games, events, or tournaments getting cancelled or played w/o fans remains to be seen. But I can't imagine a scenario without that occurring.

    I personally wouldn't want to be holding on to travel plans to see a tournament over Thanksgiving in Maui or the Bahamas or Orlando. And it would be hard to imagine the local or state health authorities wanting to welcome tens or hundreds of thousands of visitors to their cities at the start of next winter's viral disease season. If the season becomes a series of "putting out" the brushfires of localized infections popping up around the country and on different campuses and teams, I could see the NCAA pulling the plug entirely, as too many games would have been cancelled or require rescheduling after more testing.

    I think the best semi-realistic hope is for testing to have been scaled up fast and cheap enough as to allow daily or weekly testing of all players and coaching staffs, immediate quarantine of infected players before spread, and enough games not being cancelled or delayed or moved so that some semblance of a regular ~35 game season can occur.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LTownZag View Post
    This is probably not a very illuminating or useful framing of the likely situation.

    Was there a "season" this year? It depends on one's definition. Most conferences didn't complete their own tournaments. There was no bracket and no NCAA or NIT Tournament.


    Next season won't likely be decided as a binary (complete all the games regardless of what happens vs cancel all games right now).

    It's hard to imagine a scenario where multiple teams don't have players and coaches infected with Covid-19 at some point. If/when a player or coach tests positive, there's no way that team would play until all players then are tested negative.

    How those likely positive tests will result in certain numbers of games, events, or tournaments getting cancelled or played w/o fans remains to be seen. But I can't imagine a scenario without that occurring.

    I personally wouldn't want to be holding on to travel plans to see a tournament over Thanksgiving in Maui or the Bahamas or Orlando. And it would be hard to imagine the local or state health authorities wanting to welcome tens or hundreds of thousands of visitors to their cities at the start of next winter's viral disease season. If the season becomes a series of "putting out" the brushfires of localized infections popping up around the country and on different campuses and teams, I could see the NCAA pulling the plug entirely, as too many games would have been cancelled or require rescheduling after more testing.

    I think the best semi-realistic hope is for testing to have been scaled up fast and cheap enough as to allow daily or weekly testing of all players and coaching staffs, immediate quarantine of infected players before spread, and enough games not being cancelled or delayed or moved so that some semblance of a regular ~35 game season can occur.
    I think it’s all speculation. Some on here tend to be more optimistic, like myself. Some tend to be less optimistic like you. What it really comes down to is time and the developments made in the battle. Like many have said, it’s far to early to know what things will be like in June, much less November.

    In any case, let’s all follow the guidances provided right now and stay healthy/safe as we work thru this together as a country.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,374

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Vulture View Post
    I think it’s all speculation. Some on here tend to be more optimistic, like myself. Some tend to be less optimistic like you. What it really comes down to is time and the developments made in the battle. Like many have said, it’s far to early to know what things will be like in June, much less November.

    In any case, let’s all follow the guidances provided right now and stay healthy/safe as we work thru this together as a country.

    This is the kind of game-changing tech that I think would be needed and widely used in order to have a semi-normal season: portable testing.

    I agree it's far too early to know specifics. Even generalities are hard. But in contravention to the usual dynamics, I'm now the one suggesting we all speculate more, and others are now asking we speculate less.

    But part of forecasting is extrapolating out from what we can say with a high degree of confidence (greater than 80 or 90%, for example) to the logical next steps.

    Seems like one could say with a very high degree of confidence that more than one team from more than one campus will have a player of coach test positive between November and March. (Does anyone doubt that such a positive test will occur?)

    If that occurs, the infected player or coach obviously won't participate. (Does anyone doubt this would happen?)

    If a player on a team has tested positive, and the remainder of the team hasn't since tested negative, that team won't play. (does anyone doubt this will happen?)

    So unless we have very very widespread, cheap, and fast testing being administered at least 2x per week, how would the season realistically occur, even w/o fans?

    In some sense college football and NFL will serve as a trial run for college bball and NBA, though I expect the above described dynamics will occur in college and pro football as well. And those teams and staffs and organizations are larger than basketball squads.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LTownZag View Post
    This is the kind of game-changing tech that I think would be needed and widely used in order to have a semi-normal season: portable testing.

    I agree it's far too early to know specifics. Even generalities are hard. But in contravention to the usual dynamics, I'm now the one suggesting we all speculate more, and others are now asking we speculate less.

    But part of forecasting is extrapolating out from what we can say with a high degree of confidence (greater than 80 or 90%, for example) to the logical next steps.

    Seems like one could say with a very high degree of confidence that more than one team from more than one campus will have a player of coach test positive between November and March. (Does anyone doubt that such a positive test will occur?)

    If that occurs, the infected player or coach obviously won't participate. (Does anyone doubt this would happen?)

    If a player on a team has tested positive, and the remainder of the team hasn't since tested negative, that team won't play. (does anyone doubt this will happen?)

    So unless we have very very widespread, cheap, and fast testing being administered at least 2x per week, how would the season realistically occur, even w/o fans?

    In some sense college football and NFL will serve as a trial run for college bball and NBA, though I expect the above described dynamics will occur in college and pro football as well. And those teams and staffs and organizations are larger than basketball squads.
    All I’m saying is that it’s a long time until fall, let’s all let it play out. Everything else is speculation.

    To be clear, I’m not saying you’re wrong by any means. I just tend to think we will be in a completely different place come six months from now.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Just north of I-80
    Posts
    47,427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bogozags View Post
    But without ANY scholarship money!!! If memory serves, full-scholarships are not given in non-revenue sports so not sure how many GU athletes will be effected.
    Almost all spring sports are equivalency sports. That is, they have a set scholarship limit that is smaller than the size of the overall roster, which means scholarships are broken up and parceled out—unevenly. The star pitcher may be on a full ride while the average middle infielder is on a partial scholarship. (This is where academic aid, Pell Grants and other funds become part of the complex accounting process.)

    This is where the new calculus could become a bit Hunger Games-ish. Schools can decide what size scholarship they want to dole out to returning Class of 2020 athletes—it doesn’t have to be identical to what they were receiving this academic year. Thus an athlete who was on a half scholarship but not performing up to expectations could find himself or herself offered a walk-on spot for 2020–21. At best.
    https://www.si.com/college/2020/03/3...ancial-hurdles

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Vulture View Post
    All I’m saying is that it’s a long time until fall, let’s all let it play out. Everything else is speculation.

    To be clear, I’m not saying you’re wrong by any means. I just tend to think we will be in a completely different place come six months from now.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The NBA draft in all likelihood from what I'm hearing here at work will be scheduled at best late August but probably late September. This isn't official yet but because the NBA has to have a playoff system in place for draft order and then teams will be allowed to start officially scouting that will start in late July. It is going to be a disaster for a lot of players leaving early this year who will find themselves playing in the Mongolia league because they got bad advice.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,993

    Default

    We need truly random statistical sampling with these Covid-19 tests in order to create an accurate model. As far as I know, we are testing sick persons and persons of interest. We need to test a random cohort and see what comes out in the wash. We we are doing now helps give a prognosis to persons with flu-like symptoms, but that’s about it.

    The positive test rate in the U.S. as of a few days ago was 17% (ratio of positive tests to total tests). Does anyone here see almost 1 in 5 of the persons in their social circle with Covid-19?

    In Vo Eugano, Italy, they tested the entire town and 3% had it, and half of those were asymptomatic.

    The number are somewhere in between, most likely, but we don’t have a way of knowing right now, as far as I can tell.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    7,146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPtheBeasta View Post
    We need truly random statistical sampling with these Covid-19 tests in order to create an accurate model. As far as I know, we are testing sick persons and persons of interest. We need to test a random cohort and see what comes out in the wash. We we are doing now helps give a prognosis to persons with flu-like symptoms, but that’s about it.

    The positive test rate in the U.S. as of a few days ago was 17% (ratio of positive tests to total tests). Does anyone here see almost 1 in 5 of the persons in their social circle with Covid-19?

    In Vo Eugano, Italy, they tested the entire town and 3% had it, and half of those were asymptomatic.

    The number are somewhere in between, most likely, but we don’t have a way of knowing right now, as far as I can tell.
    Thank you, and I, as a layman, agree.
    The other is I see charts showing how many in the US, compared to Italy and Canada were positive after date 'X' with no relation to total population. In my mind it becomes meaningless if there is no other correlation besides total number testing positive.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willandi View Post
    Thank you, and I, as a layman, agree.
    The other is I see charts showing how many in the US, compared to Italy and Canada were positive after date 'X' with no relation to total population. In my mind it becomes meaningless if there is no other correlation besides total number testing positive.
    If 17% of Americans truly have the virus, the death totals would be much higher at a rate of 1.7%. If you multiply 927 million times .17 x .017 and you’ll get a very high number for the expected death toll. Granted, not everyone has been exposed, but this has been in American likely since December and I would expect the death total to be much higher than the current number.

    Another thing: the case have gone up slowly in closer to a linear fashion than the explosive exponential growth everyone predicted. Is this due to social distancing or is the virus just not as scary as we are told it is? An actual random sampling study would give us a clearer picture.

    **ETA correction: 327 million not 927
    Last edited by JPtheBeasta; 04-02-2020 at 07:48 AM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,374

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPtheBeasta View Post
    Another thing: the case have gone up slowly in closer to a linear fashion than the explosive exponential growth everyone predicted. Is this due to social distancing or is the virus just not as scary as we are told it is? An actual random sampling study would give us a clearer picture.
    Confirmed cases increase rate is limited by our testing capacity, with the bottleneck really being the federal (FDA) certification of the tests. If that capacity is only growing at a certain rate, it's hard for confirmed cases (what's being measured) to grow any faster.

    Deaths are not limited by FDA testing regulations. Looks pretty exponential to me.




    I agree with your point about the value in random sampling.
    2 other helpful kinds of sampling:

    1. Municipal wastewater systems should be doing samples to determine viral load in the population via human waste (and snot, etc)
    2. There should be "batch testing" of healthy seeming cohorts, which is relatively fast and cheap. If groups of 10 (or 50, or 200) people submit swabbed that are batched, one test is run, and it's negative, then all persons know they are negative. I expect something like this to be used next year by the NCAA if/when basketball season starts. If there's a positive in a group test, then further tests (of small groups or everyone) are required.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    851

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPtheBeasta View Post
    If 17% of Americans truly have the virus, the death totals would be much higher at a rate of 1.7%. If you multiply 927 million times .17 x .017 and you’ll get a very high number for the expected death toll. Granted, not everyone has been exposed, but this has been in American likely since December and I would expect the death total to be much higher than the current number.

    Another thing: the case have gone up slowly in closer to a linear fashion than the explosive exponential growth everyone predicted. Is this due to social distancing or is the virus just not as scary as we are told it is? An actual random sampling study would give us a clearer picture.
    Do you mean 327 million? That's the population of the US.

    If only 17% get it (55,590,000) and 1.7% die, that's 945,030 people.

    I've heard professionals state about 1/3 of the US population could get it before this is all over (we have a vaccine). Just double the figure above for that number.
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."
    -Zach Norvell Jr.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,374

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hockeyzag View Post
    Do you mean 327 million? That's the population of the US.

    If only 17% get it (55,590,000) and 1.7% die, that's 945,030 people.

    I've heard professionals state about 1/3 of the US population could get it before this is all over (we have a vaccine). Just double the figure above for that number.
    The math isn't very hard and we all have calculators. I don't understand why the recent public statements from the US gov about 100,000-200,000+ deaths surprised people. It's low-end optimism.

    In order to reach something like effective "herd immunity", at least half of the population would need to have antibodies from being infected. Let's just be conservative and round down to 1/3. That's 110 million in the USA.

    The infected fatality rate looks to be about .9% in western countries without overwhelmed hospital systems. Let's again be super conservative and just round down to 1/2 of 1% (1-in-200).

    110,000,000 x .005 = 550,000 people.


    Looked at another way, there are 35 million americans over the age of 70. If only 25% of them ever got infected, and 4% of them died (both very very very low end estimates)

    35,000,000 x .25 x .04 = 350,000 deaths just among those over 70.

    The input data for any of this has been available for weeks, but 3 weeks ago here I was personally insulted by user "NEC26" for suggesting american deaths within a year would be at least 200,000.



  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hockeyzag View Post
    Do you mean 327 million? That's the population of the US.

    If only 17% get it (55,590,000) and 1.7% die, that's 945,030 people.

    I've heard professionals state about 1/3 of the US population could get it before this is all over (we have a vaccine). Just double the figure above for that number.
    Yes. Sorry. There have been a lot of numbers swimming around in my head. I believe the 9 came from 327 million x 3% (an estimate derived from the Vo Eugano infection rate).

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPtheBeasta View Post
    Yes. Sorry. There have been a lot of numbers swimming around in my head. I believe the 9 came from 327 million x 3% (an estimate derived from the Vo Eugano infection rate).
    Back on the subject, time will tell us where we are. I think the biggest determiners are going to be testing ability by the end of summer and treatments for the virus.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,993

    Default

    As far as fear about X% of the population getting this, we actually want the 80% who will have minimal symptoms to get it and get over it as quickly as possible, as long as we can minimize the effects on the vulnerable 20%. Doing so will eventually lower the impact on these 20%. This is easier said than done, but herd immunity is perhaps more important than a vaccine.

    For the sake of argument, what happens if this mutates (again) next year and the vaccine is worthless? We need a better solution than shutting down society during flu season every time this happens.

    In my opinion, healthy and young persons are living in fear of getting this when the real reason they don’t want it is so that they don’t pass it along to the most vulnerable in the population.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Opportunity, WA
    Posts
    1,936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPtheBeasta View Post
    As far as fear about X% of the population getting this, we actually want the 80% who will have minimal symptoms to get it and get over it as quickly as possible, as long as we can minimize the effects on the vulnerable 20%. Doing so will eventually lower the impact on these 20%. This is easier said than done, but herd immunity is perhaps more important than a vaccine.

    For the sake of argument, what happens if this mutates (again) next year and the vaccine is worthless? We need a better solution than shutting down society during flu season every time this happens.

    In my opinion, healthy and young persons are living in fear of getting this when the real reason they don’t want it is so that they don’t pass it along to the most vulnerable in the population.
    So herd immunity wouldn't be negatively impacted by a mutation?
    Agent provocateur

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sonuvazag View Post
    So herd immunity wouldn't be negatively impacted by a mutation?
    I’m welcome for input of the thought process is off-base, but either way, the process would start all over again, but if we can figure out how to help with herd immunity while minimizing the negative effects, I still think it is better than bringing the economy and social interaction to a halt and waiting for a vaccine next year.

    I was reading about H1N1, and effected younger people without the same impact on the older folks. As it turns out, enough of them had immunity from a similar virus in the past that their immune systems were ready for it. I would hope for a similar situation with this.

    I want to be clear also that I’m am 100% in favor of a vaccine, but my thought is that it will not be the solution we look for in the short term to quell the worries/anxiety when the next “big one” hits.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    18,356

    Default

    We are in absolute uncharted waters.

    Absolutely no one knows what's going to happen, and it's even possible that the economics of the situation will kill more people, physically and emotionally, more so than the virus.

    We simply don't know.

    We do what we can. We do what makes sense. We do what experts tell us. And we all show some citizenship and care for others, and then we see what happens. There really isn't much more to say if one isn't working in an ICU or in a lab in Atlanta.
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
    Mark Twain.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •