This question was asked on another site and drew some interesting answers, so I’m curious what people here think.
If there was a game, and I had tickets, I would go
Giant sneeze guard around NEZ
If they have games, I’ll be there.
I don’t have Ute Tix, but I regard it like concerts. Will need a vaccine or established, prior exposure to ensure the saftey myself and those around me.
I’d tailgate and watch the game on tv at the tailgate. I don’t think I’d be going inside the stadium until there is a vaccine.
I would tailgate and go to the game, most likely.
I want to go to the games. I bought my tix. I may wear a mask if allowed to attend.
I likely (due to having a wife who has a weakened immune system) simply will not be able to attend any kind of events until everything is under control as far as the outbreak is concerned (likely not until there is a reliable safe vaccine) Paid for tickets so I can keep them for future years. More concerned about staying safe and keeping family safe in the meantime.
Too many variables right now to know, ask again as we get closer to the season.
Y’know, this probably isn’t a bad idea no matter what.
If these young men are going to risk their very lives for my entertainment, then I feel obligated to support them.
Seriously, if I feel well, I’ll be there.
Hey, I resemble that remark.
Then again, we get the drunk topless chicks because we are classy that way. Well that and to see if we can get Pac-Man Jones to do a guest appearance.
I just paid for my tickets, mostly because I don’t want to lose my seats. To be honest, I’ll be really nervous to go to games this fall and may skip them.
I wonder about the rate of transmission outdoors. I imagine it would be lower than indoors. Given that the virus has a low survival rate outdoors in direct sunlight I would still attend and I would wear a mask if that were the current guidance.
From Jon Wilner’s PAC-12 Hotline today:
The Path Forward?
The so-called “hybrid model” of teaching — a combination of in-person and online instruction — might allow campuses to open for business by eliminating large gatherings in lecture halls and thereby reducing the threat of coronavirus spread.
If the classrooms are deemed safe, even in a modified way, the locker rooms might be allowed to open.
The former doesn’t guarantee the latter, but it gives college sports a fighting chance this fall.
Conversely, closed classrooms (and dining halls and dorms) would ensure closed locker rooms.
“If the students, broadly, are not back on campus,’’ Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott told the Hotline recently, “I don’t imagine the student-athletes being back under any scenario.”
. . .
The approach is under discussion on numerous campuses within the Pac-12, including — crucially — Cal.
With its urban campus, an early start date (Aug. 26) and the strict shelter-in-place guidelines imposed across the Bay Area, Cal might be the trickiest situation in the Pac-12 — the greatest obstacle to a full complement of football teams whenever the season begins.
If Cal doesn’t open its classrooms, and locker room, Stanford, a mere 45 miles away might not, either…
And if Cal doesn’t open its classrooms, and locker room, would UCLA?
The schools are part of the same system — a system managed by the University of California Office of the President.
“I think it’s fair to say none of our campuses will fully reopen,” UC president Janet Napolitano said recently.
But in that same discussion, with the Bay Area Council, Napolitano outlined plans to deploy the hybrid model:
“I think what some of our campuses are exploring is a mix, where there will be some material delivered in a classroom or lab setting, so-called wet labs, and other classes will continue to be online.”
That mix is the way out, so to speak — the key to opening the doors to create a hint of a semblance of normalcy that would allow sports to resume. — Jon Wilner.