Lamar Jackson is one of the biggest names among the 23 Ravens who have tested positiveGETTY IMAGES
NFL officials are "actively discussing creating 'local bubbles' for the 14 or 16 teams that make the playoffs -- isolating all personnel in hotels except to go to and from the team facility and strictly enforcing limitations on who is permitted inside to interact with players, coaches or support staff," according to Rapoport & Pelissero of NFL.com. With an outbreak among the Ravens last week forcing the postponement of their Thanksgiving Day game against the Steelers until tomorrow, the league now is "considering its most dramatic action yet to prevent such situations in the postseason." Creating local bubbles for playoff teams is "considered a more feasible solution than creating 32 separate bubbles for the remainder of the regular season, or creating one large bubble in the mold of the NBA and NHL playoffs, with thousands more people inside because of the size of NFL rosters and staffs." No final decision "has been made, and the union would also need to sign off" (NFL.com, 11/29).
LOOK AT LOGISTICS: SI.com's Albert Breer writes players would be put in hotels in their home cities "in an effort to remove all team personnel from the communities they live in." However, there are two things to consider -- it would take "at least five to seven days to establish the bubbles" and the plan would "likely backfire badly if the virus somehow got in one of the bubbles" (SI.com, 11/30). Fox' Howie Long said, “Everything’s on the table right now. We’ve run out of bye weeks. Once we get towards the playoffs, I think we’re probably going to be in some kind of bubble" ("Fox NFL Sunday," 11/29). CBS’ Bill Cowher said a bubble is needed "for a competitive imbalance standpoint that’s out there and from a safety standpoint." Cowher: “It worked in hockey. It worked in basketball. I think the time is now. Protect the integrity of the game. It’s the fairest thing to do, and it’s the safest thing to do” (“The NFL Today,” CBS, 11/29).
SHOULD LEAGUE TAKE A BREAK? In L.A., Sam Farmer writes the NFL "repeatedly has made it clear that it is evaluating every option in an effort to complete the season." One of the options discussed at NFL HQ is "pushing the pause button on the season for a week or two to allow teams to catch their breath and regain their equilibrium." Those missing two weeks "could be tacked on the end of the season so that essential games could be played." Farmer: "The problem is, sending players home for a week or two could create more problems than it solves, as more time with family and friends also means more potential exposure to the virus" (L.A. TIMES, 11/30). However, ESPN's Adam Schefter noted the NFL is "determined to forge forward, even it if means that there are over 11 Ravens players who have tested positive, even if it means the Broncos have to rely on a practice squad wide receiver to play quarterback." Schefter: “People have introduced the idea of an 18th week. That’s a last resort, only if necessary. People have introduced the idea of an eighth playoff team in each conference. Only if necessary. What is necessary to the league is to continue to try to keep players and coaches safe as best as it can and to get these games played. Let’s remember, this is a billion-dollar business. The league’s job is to put on these games” (“Sunday NFL Countdown,” ESPN, 11/29).
GETTING WORSE BEFORE IT GETS BETTER: USA TODAY's Jarrett Bell writes this past week was the NFL's "seemingly worst week yet on the COVID-19 front." During the course of a week, 43 players across the league "were added to the COVID-19 reserve list -- some due to positive test results, some because of contact tracing -- including some very big NFL names" (USA TODAY, 11/30). In Baltimore, Jonas Shaffer notes from Aug. 1-Nov. 14, 95 players and 175 other team personnel tested positive, but no games have been canceled. Because of the "challenges inherent in canceling or forfeiting games ... the NFL has preferred to reschedule games threatened by an outbreak" (BALTIMORE SUN, 11/30). In Boston, Ben Volin wrote forfeits are "not a viable option for the NFL." While a forfeit would "send a strong message to the other 31 teams that COVID-19 protocols must be followed to the letter," it also is the "worst solution" for both the league and the NFLPA. The CBA states players "only get paid for games played." Additionally, a forfeited game "means one fewer game that is aired on TV, which means less revenue" (BOSTON GLOBE, 11/29).
TRYING TO PLAY REGARDLESS: THE RINGER's Rodger Sherman writes three months into the season, it is "not clear what the NFL's threshold for delaying a game is." Fans are "supposed to take the league at their word that they're enforcing all their policies to the letter, but we don't really know what those policies are." Sherman: "Why not just push the game until a Broncos quarterback repeatedly tested negative, or until they could sign a coronavirus-free quarterback? The NHL and MLS have policies in place to ensure a team is never without a goalkeeper -- why doesn't the NFL have something like that?" (THERINGER.com, 11/30). In S.F., Ann Killion writes the NFL is "shoehorning games into the schedule." Allowing unprepared practice-squad players, like Broncos' Kendall Hinton, to "suit up as starters in their dangerous game." Applying their "rules and protocols in inconsistent fashion." And "appearing to put completing a 16-game schedule ahead of players' health, common sense and optics" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 11/30). USA TODAY's Nancy Armour wrote after nearly 15 years of "being near-obsessive about protecting his beloved shield ... Goodell decides now is the time to say the hell with the integrity of the game?" Armour: "Is this really what the NFL wants? To degrade its own product? To take the hard work that's been done by so many people throughout the league just to get this far and make a joke of it? Because that's what the NFL is doing by pretending it can still outwit COVID" (USA TODAY, 11/29).
NO TIME TO BE ARROGANT WITH VIRUS: In DC, Jerry Brewer writes while it is unlikely that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell "will publicly acknowledge any danger, he needs to make sure the league has several firm contingency plans in place." The coronavirus is "in charge, and it is raging once again." Brewer: "Let's keep saying it: It's impossible to play football out in the open, without a bubble environment, and not be significantly affected." The NFL "can't afford to be bullheaded, rigid and overconfident." It "should be leery of sticking to a script when the opponent is so viciously adaptable" (WASHINGTON POST, 11/30). In Pittsburgh, Tim Benz writes the NFL "has danced through the raindrops until this point." But that "borrowed time appears to be expiring." With no "league-wide bubble in place, these NFL players can only avoid exposure for so long." Goodell and the owners "need to figure out what the real goal is moving forward." Benz: "Is the league trying to get all the games played? Or is the goal just to finish the season in a representative fashion?" (TRIBLIVE.com, 11/30). In Toronto, John Kryk wrote fans "have to begin to wonder ... how much longer the NFL can keep its season going" (TORONTO SUN, 11/29). In N.Y., Dennis Young wrote under the header, "The NFL Is Finally Buckling Under The Coronovirus" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 11/28). However, in Pittsburgh, Ron Cook writes the NFL "must remain light on its feet" in the days ahead because the COVID-19 "surge is going to get worse before it gets better." The NFL is a $15B industry, which "means it has 15 billion reasons to finish its season." It "might be interrupted or delayed by COVID-19, but it won't be denied" (PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 11/30).
MONEY STILL TALKS: YAHOO SPORTS' Shalise Manza Young wrote the NFL still is "being paid by the league's broadcast partners," and it "doesn’t matter how many people -- players, coaches, staff and their family, and community members -- are being needlessly put at risk." As long as the team owners are "getting their money, they're getting what they want." Amid an uptick in positive cases and exposure around the league, the NFL's "posture is to stick its head in the sand and pretend the tornado swirling around it isn't actually there." Shutting down all facilities for two days, as the league "has mandated for Monday and Tuesday, is nothing but more performative foolishness." It "won't do anything meaningful." It is "pretty much how the league has approached this entire situation: all performance, nothing meaningful" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 11/29). NBCSPORTS.com's Peter King writes the NFL's actions should be expected with the league in the middle of "laying the groundwork for the next round of billion-dollar media negotiations, with a country voracious for some normalcy like NFL games" (NBCSPORTS.com, 11/30).
