80 game season with expanded playoffs, starting in July

[Cubswin11]

i'm hoping the Dodgers lose like 7 regular season games, and then get knocked out by a .500 team in the playoffs.

I hope the D’backs or Rockies just catch a heater for 40 or so games and the the Dodgers don’t win the division and lose as a WC team first round

[champaignchris]

i'm hoping the Dodgers lose like 7 regular season games, and then get knocked out by a .500 team in the playoffs.

 

This is almost guaranteed to happen.

[17 Seconds]

if the cubs win, we can brag about them having 2 in recent memory.

But will we, really?

 

If the Cubs win the World Series in a drastically-shortened season, and do it with no fans in the stands, will that feel at all special? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around appreciating such an accomplishment.

 

this is my point. it doesn't have to be "special" for us , because we already get the next-level special one 4 years ago with the same core. if the cubs hadn't won already, i'd almost not want them to win this year because it wouldn't feel real and we'd enter this bizarre "the cubs broke the curse but actually they kind of didn't" reality going forward. since they have the legit one, sure, i'll take the fun bonus of winning the covid season too.

[Janelle-Alexis]

With such a rich history of winning World Series as the Cubs have, we can afford to be dismissive of the odd championship that doesn't live up to our standards.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

With such a rich history of winning World Series as the Cubs have, we can afford to be dismissive of the odd championship that doesn't live up to our standards.

 

Technically i believe we are top-10 in most WS won.

[stitchface]

 

 

yes, there has to be some significant reward for finishing first. 16 does not suggest byes though.

 

8 divisions of 4 would lend itself to them pretty easily. With everyone under the DH and smaller divisions you could realign more optimally for geography too.

 

 

thats a lot of divisions. I wonder if they could reduce the travel that way also.

 

 

ok, my shot at 8 four team divisions:

AL

West

Oakland

Seattle

Portland

Colorado

 

Central

Minnesota

White Sox

Cleveland

Detroit

 

South

Texas

Houston

Arizona

Kansas City

 

East

Boston

Yankees

Baltimore

Philadelphia

 

NL

West

San Francisco

Dodgers

San Diego

Anaheim

 

Central

Cubs

St. Louis

Milwaukee

Cincinnati

 

North

Toronto

Washington

Pittsburgh

Montreal

 

East

Tampa

Miami

Mets

Atlanta

[17 Seconds]

none of these sports are actually going to happen this year

[bukie]

none of these sports are actually going to happen this year

I'd say there's a good chance MLS happens this year. NBA could happen but suddenly Orlando is the worst place to have it. NHL should be fine overall. MLB would be fine if the owners cared about anything other than their bottom line.

 

NFL is probably going to happen but shouldn't.

[minnesotacubsfan]

none of these sports are actually going to happen this year

I'd say there's a good chance MLS happens this year. NBA could happen but suddenly Orlando is the worst place to have it. NHL should be fine overall. MLB would be fine if the owners cared about anything other than their bottom line.

 

NFL is probably going to happen but shouldn't.

 

 

the contact sports are likely the ones to be most in jeopardy in terms of infection, so nfl, nba, hockey, maybe soccer in that order from wrost to best. mlb is pretty safe in comparison. in terms of timing, mlb, nfl,(when is the soccer season??) and nba/ nhl in terms of worst timing to best.

 

 

i'd say its a pretty mixed bag really

 

eta : but if I handicapped them the way I outlined them I'd say worst chances to best are

 

nfl

nba

hockey

mlb

 

depending on mls's schedule, they are in the nba/hockey group I believe, but lower on the scale

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

 

eta : but if I handicapped them the way I outlined them I'd say worst chances to best are

 

nfl

nba

hockey

mlb

 

depending on mls's schedule, they are in the nba/hockey group I believe, but lower on the scale

The NFL is the most likely sport to happen, so don't go into handicapping for a profession.

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

eta : but if I handicapped them the way I outlined them I'd say worst chances to best are

 

nfl

nba

hockey

mlb

 

depending on mls's schedule, they are in the nba/hockey group I believe, but lower on the scale

The NFL is the most likely sport to happen, so don't go into handicapping for a profession.

 

I think hockey is the most likely to happen. But in general what I mean to say which sport is most likely to be the worst vs best in terms of infection control, or should happen. mlb is struggling with it but only because of owner greed

 

besides, its a message board. I'll handicap what I want

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I don't think the nature of the sport has much to do with it coming back or doing so successfully. All of the stated plans involve such constant testing that you have a much lower surface area for exposure while practicing/playing, and most sports do not or barely meet the criteria to be risky for transmission.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I don't think the nature of the sport has much to do with it coming back or doing so successfully. All of the stated plans involve such constant testing that you have a much lower surface area for exposure while practicing/playing, and most sports do not or barely meet the criteria to be risky for transmission.

 

 

I wont bore you with the site but:

 

COVID-19 is believed to spread mainly from person-to-person, between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet) or through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes.

 

https://covid19.wustl.edu/health-safety/

 

how does that not happen in, say, the nfl?

 

but also, timing with the first or second or third wave of infections also plays a part. And I would add what states are taking the most stringent matters. Since the southern states tend to ignore protocol as prescribed by the cdc and be heavier nfl cities then hockey cities, the nfl is more likely to be affected.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

I don't think the nature of the sport has much to do with it coming back or doing so successfully. All of the stated plans involve such constant testing that you have a much lower surface area for exposure while practicing/playing, and most sports do not or barely meet the criteria to be risky for transmission.

 

 

I wont bore you with the site but:

 

COVID-19 is believed to spread mainly from person-to-person, between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet) or through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes.

 

https://covid19.wustl.edu/health-safety/

 

how does that not happen in, say, the nfl?

The concern is not the actual athletes spreading the virus. They get tested too much for that to matter at all. Its the audience spreading the virus (which, in case you didn't know, is a MUCH larger population than the athletes, much more at risk to die from the virus, and does not have access to testing to tack and prevent the virus's spread) and how they make money off of actually playing the games that matters. But yeah, if you want to handicap things you are obviously free to. I'm also free to say that's ridiculously wrong, right?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I don't think the nature of the sport has much to do with it coming back or doing so successfully. All of the stated plans involve such constant testing that you have a much lower surface area for exposure while practicing/playing, and most sports do not or barely meet the criteria to be risky for transmission.

 

 

I wont bore you with the site but:

 

COVID-19 is believed to spread mainly from person-to-person, between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet) or through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes.

 

https://covid19.wustl.edu/health-safety/

 

how does that not happen in, say, the nfl?

 

Duration. it's not that you ever get within 6 feet of someone, it's that you need 15+ minutes of that proximity. Yes, transmission is still possible without sustained exposure, but non-zero risk isn't the same as significant risk.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I don't think the nature of the sport has much to do with it coming back or doing so successfully. All of the stated plans involve such constant testing that you have a much lower surface area for exposure while practicing/playing, and most sports do not or barely meet the criteria to be risky for transmission.

 

 

I wont bore you with the site but:

 

COVID-19 is believed to spread mainly from person-to-person, between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet) or through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes.

 

https://covid19.wustl.edu/health-safety/

 

how does that not happen in, say, the nfl?

 

Duration. it's not that you ever get within 6 feet of someone, it's that you need 15+ minutes of that proximity. Yes, transmission is still possible without sustained exposure, but non-zero risk isn't the same as significant risk.

 

nfl players spend most of the game in huddles, in formation close to another player, even during the play they are generally running with the same player over and over and over and.... I'd call that significant duration

[minnesotacubsfan]

I don't think the nature of the sport has much to do with it coming back or doing so successfully. All of the stated plans involve such constant testing that you have a much lower surface area for exposure while practicing/playing, and most sports do not or barely meet the criteria to be risky for transmission.

 

 

I wont bore you with the site but:

 

COVID-19 is believed to spread mainly from person-to-person, between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet) or through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes.

 

https://covid19.wustl.edu/health-safety/

 

how does that not happen in, say, the nfl?

The concern is not the actual athletes spreading the virus. They get tested too much for that to matter at all. Its the audience spreading the virus (which, in case you didn't know, is a MUCH larger population than the athletes, much more at risk to die from the virus, and does not have access to testing to tack and prevent the virus's spread) and how they make money off of actually playing the games that matters. But yeah, if you want to handicap things you are obviously free to. I'm also free to say that's ridiculously wrong, right?[/quote]

 

1) which is the concern on the timing of their seasons and where the teams call home

 

2) you are free to do so.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

 

 

I wont bore you with the site but:

 

COVID-19 is believed to spread mainly from person-to-person, between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet) or through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes.

 

https://covid19.wustl.edu/health-safety/

 

how does that not happen in, say, the nfl?

 

Duration. it's not that you ever get within 6 feet of someone, it's that you need 15+ minutes of that proximity. Yes, transmission is still possible without sustained exposure, but non-zero risk isn't the same as significant risk.

 

nfl players spend most of the game in huddles, in formation close to another player, even during the play they are generally running with the same player over and over and over and.... I'd call that significant duration

 

Possibly, 15 minutes is a long time when you're getting it in short bursts. I also haven't seen if there's been any official word on ways the rules might change to promote distancing. Also screw football I hope it never comes back but that's neither here nor there.

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

Duration. it's not that you ever get within 6 feet of someone, it's that you need 15+ minutes of that proximity. Yes, transmission is still possible without sustained exposure, but non-zero risk isn't the same as significant risk.

 

nfl players spend most of the game in huddles, in formation close to another player, even during the play they are generally running with the same player over and over and over and.... I'd call that significant duration

 

Possibly, 15 minutes is a long time when you're getting it in short bursts. I also haven't seen if there's been any official word on ways the rules might change to promote distancing. Also screw football I hope it never comes back but that's neither here nor there.

 

when you look at stats like "time of possession", they show you how long certain players are likely to be next to other players. Its generally around 20-40 minutes. I know guys move around on the field, get covered by other defenders, etc, that limits that time to some extent, but that may only INCREASE the likelihood of spread by putting players in close contact to more people even if for short times.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

 

nfl players spend most of the game in huddles, in formation close to another player, even during the play they are generally running with the same player over and over and over and.... I'd call that significant duration

 

Possibly, 15 minutes is a long time when you're getting it in short bursts. I also haven't seen if there's been any official word on ways the rules might change to promote distancing. Also screw football I hope it never comes back but that's neither here nor there.

 

when you look at stats like "time of possession", they show you how long certain players are likely to be next to other players. Its generally around 20-40 minutes. I know guys move around on the field, get covered by other defenders, etc, that limits that time to some extent, but that may only INCREASE the likelihood of spread by putting players in close contact to more people even if for short times.

 

Well to start with you can cut that in half because there aren't two-way players. But the whole thing about duration is that while it is possible for a single person to exhale once and that has droplets that end up infecting someone, it doesn't reach a reasonable standard of high risk for transmission. And again, these players are getting constantly tested which shrinks the risk further. I would say football and basketball are the most risky, but the exact degree of risk pales in comparison to risk of exposure off the field, to Judas' point.

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

Possibly, 15 minutes is a long time when you're getting it in short bursts. I also haven't seen if there's been any official word on ways the rules might change to promote distancing. Also screw football I hope it never comes back but that's neither here nor there.

 

when you look at stats like "time of possession", they show you how long certain players are likely to be next to other players. Its generally around 20-40 minutes. I know guys move around on the field, get covered by other defenders, etc, that limits that time to some extent, but that may only INCREASE the likelihood of spread by putting players in close contact to more people even if for short times.

 

Well to start with you can cut that in half because there aren't two-way players. But the whole thing about duration is that while it is possible for a single person to exhale once and that has droplets that end up infecting someone, it doesn't reach a reasonable standard of high risk for transmission. And again, these players are getting constantly tested which shrinks the risk further. I would say football and basketball are the most risky, but the exact degree of risk pales in comparison to risk of exposure off the field, to Judas' point.

 

 

No, 20-40 minutes per game is the time an offense or defense is on the field meaning (barring substitutions) a player is likely to be in close contact with another player for that time period. And a player may slip past the testing protocol unless they are testing the morning of a game and have results immediately available. It could become too retroactive to be purposeful.

 

I agree about the nba vs football, but I give nba fans more credit in terms of intelligence. maybe I'm wrong

[Banedon]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Named After Maddux]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[NOLA]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

Not tryin to doom boner here, but at this point I’d be pretty surprised if half the major sports are playing this Summer/Fall, short of a vaccine or a really effective treatment. It seems like we are getting reports weekly of outbreaks in teams or organizations and they haven’t even gotten off the ground yet.

[stitchface]

none of these sports are actually going to happen this year

I'd say there's a good chance MLS happens this year. NBA could happen but suddenly Orlando is the worst place to have it. NHL should be fine overall. MLB would be fine if the owners cared about anything other than their bottom line.

 

NFL is probably going to happen but shouldn't.

 

 

the contact sports are likely the ones to be most in jeopardy in terms of infection, so nfl, nba, hockey, maybe soccer in that order from wrost to best. mlb is pretty safe in comparison. in terms of timing, mlb, nfl,(when is the soccer season??) and nba/ nhl in terms of worst timing to best.

 

 

i'd say its a pretty mixed bag really

 

eta : but if I handicapped them the way I outlined them I'd say worst chances to best are

 

nfl

nba

hockey

mlb

 

depending on mls's schedule, they are in the nba/hockey group I believe, but lower on the scale

 

Soccer is comparable to hockey I would say but it's outdoors. MLS season is right now. for reference, they are playing professional soccer in Europe right now - in Germany since May 16. It's going fine. No fans.