A week or two ago someone suggested the NCAA Tournament be played in empty arena's due to the Coronavirus. The idea at the time seemed so far fetched it was dismissed as nonsense. Well today the governor of Ohio announced that he recommends that all indoor events be carried out without spectators, in case you didn't know the First Four are held in Dayton, Ohio and Cleveland is hosting games in the opening weekend of the NCAA Tournament. That is only the first step, we are still over a week from 3 huge NCAA tournaments, the Men's and Women's hoops tournaments held at 16 different venues each, and the Wrestling Nationals being held inside a football stadium in Minneapolis in an attempt to have the largest crowd ever for tournament. Meanwhile, the MLS, MLB, NHL, and NBA have all restricted the media from entering the locker room. What does this all mean? Is it overreaction, perhaps action that isn't really action, or underreaction. I don't really want to get into a deep discussion about how we've as a country handled this virus, perhaps it's overblown but it's still happening. Instead, I want to look at what an event with no spectators would look like, and who are we really protecting.
I'll answer the 2nd question first, who are we really protecting? The professional teams are looking to protect their investments, first and foremost, the players are the most important asset they have. If a player were to get the virus from someone while on the time of the team, they could have a lawsuit. Same goes for these NCAA events, things could turn out poorly, if someone were to contaminate the athletes. I understand the virus doesn't affect people in good health, or even threaten their lives, but what if an athlete were to get the virus they would have to be quarantined for 2 weeks and that could mean consequences. For NCAA athletes they would miss their chance at the hoops tournament, NBA teams could miss the playoffs, MLB players could miss opening day. The fact that their life may not be in jeopardy isn't the problem, it's that their performance could be in jeopardy, and performance means dollars, and if you cost someone dollars they will try to get those dollars back from you. That's why MLB isn't worried about fans they aren't invested in the fans, and if a fan gets sick they won't cost the team any time or money.
The idea of playing a game without fans isn't unheard of. In April 2015, amid riots in Baltimore, the Orioles and White Sox played this game in front of zero fans. It was something to behold. There haven been plenty of other events held around the world without fans, and those are also strange to see. The good part is, you can hear what's going on, not the ambient sound of the fans talking. The downside of course is there no reaction to the game, is there real momentum without cheering? What is the bench mob to do when they have nobody to fire up? This could be a great experiment, does crowd noise really matter? Do crowds affect events? Obviously homefield advantage is real, because teams get to be at home, and in their normal routine. Now obviously the NCAA tournament isn't played at home for anyone, but the upper seeds do get preferential venue choice close to home. I for one think it will be neat to watch a game with zero fans, it wouldn't be preferable, but for a month so we can try to stop the virus from spreading, I'm all for it.
Let's try to keep an open mind the rest of the way with this virus while not overreacting, which is about impossible, I know. Let these leagues and organizations make the proper choices to protect everyone involved and maybe after a month this thing will start to clear up.
No comments:
Post a Comment