Sports

A lack of foresight

From the time the NFL announced its plans to go forward with the 2020 season, it was probable—or inevitable—that the season would be impacted by the coronavirus.  We may have made it nearly a quarter of the way through the schedule, but we got our first taste of COVID-19 football this week, as positive tests forced teams—and the league—to scramble for answers.  But while one bad week might not be enough to derail this year’s campaign, I fear that the NFL’s lack of flexibility could be something that ultimately conspires to bring the season to a grinding halt.

Following the Tennessee Titans’ announcement that nine rostered players had tested positive for the virus last week, the NFL was faced with its first real
test on the viability of holding its season during this pandemic.  Several days later, the league was dealt another blow, as one of its highest-profile stars, New
England quarterback Cam Newton, also tested positive. In a vacuum, the ensuing steps made by the league were the right ones; the Titans/Steelers game slated
for this week was pushed back to week 7—which also requires some schedule manipulation for the Baltimore Ravens—while the Patriots/Chiefs game was pushed back to Monday night and saw “iconic” quarterbacks like Brian Hoyer and Jarrett Stidham under center for the Pats instead of the electric Newton.

But the issue laid bare by last week’s positive tests wasn’t whether or not the NFL could handle a bad week like the one it just had; it’s what the league
plans to do if more and more players begin to test positive.

While the NBA and NHL held their restarts in isolated bubbles, the NFL season, much like the MLB, is filled with travel and puts the onus on its players
to be responsible when not at the teams’ practice facilities.

But unlike Major League Baseball—which had its fair share of COVID-related problems, especially in the early-goings of the season—one thing the NFL has
in scant supply is flexibility.  In late-July, nine members of the St. Louis Cardinals tested positive for the virus, shutting the Cards’ season down for just over
two weeks.  But due to the nature of baseball, the team was able to make up most of those games in the ensuing six weeks of the season, eschewing off-days to finish with 58 games played, just two fewer than the 60 that were originally scheduled.  But baseball is a different animal than football, a sport in which playing doubleheaders would be tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.  In a grueling physical sport such as football, even the prospect of playing a Thursday night game after a Sunday game—as teams have been forced to do for the last three years—is an unenviable one.

There simply isn’t time enough built into the schedule to change things on the fly if a massive outbreak of coronavirus threatens to cancel a handful of games.

On Monday, the NFL announced that it planned to impose greater sanctions on teams with positive tests, including fines, lost draft picks and even
forfeitures moving forward.  But it seems to me that these are issues that could have been hammered out before teams came back to play ball.

The NFL could very well have shortened the season and built more bye weeks into the schedule in order to accommodate the inevitable outbreak. But they
didn’t because, for the owners, TV money is the almighty king.  It might not matter to them if, by week 7, we’re watching a quarterback duel between Colt McCoy and Nate Sudfeld, because in their mind, we’ll be watching no matter what.

Greed caused them to aim for a perfect season and has left them scrambling to come up with a contingency plan. Now we’re going to have to see if these owners
can think on their feet.

Follow Mike on Twitter
@LiveMike_Sports