In a virtual news conference Friday to announce the Pac-12's revised football schedule for the fall, conference commissioner Larry Scott was asked directly what his confidence level is that a season will indeed be played.
His answer acknowledged the uncertainty that still exists even with a formal plan now for a 10-game conference-only season intended to start on Sept. 26.
"I'll approach the answer to that question with a lot of humility, and I don't know," Scott said plainly. "I think we are all trying to take a step at a time. We are cautiously optimistic sitting here today. ... There are elements outside our control that are going to have a lot of influence on that question -- what's happening in our communities, what's happening on our campuses? A lot of that's got to do with mask wearing, social distancing, other things, what happens when thousands of students come back to our campus? None of us have the answer to that question.
"We feel a tremendous obligation, however, for the health and well-being of our student-athletes -- including their mental health -- to provide every opportunity possible to be able to play. ... That's what we're determined to do -- to create the opportunity, to preserve the opportunity -- if the health conditions and the community conditions allow us to go forward, and if the public health authorities allow us to go forward. So that's our mindset, but I can't make a prediction."
RELATED: A look at USC's revised 10-game 2020 football schedule
In revealing the 10-game schedule that includes both a bye week and an open date at the end of the slate, a week before the targeted Pac-12 championship game on Dec. 18 or 19, Scott emphasized "a lot of built-in flexibility."
He also acknowledged that it's possible some schools in the conference won't have clearance from local government and public health jurisdictions to start on Sept. 26, or to start their training camps on the targeted Aug. 17 date to be able to get ready for the season, and that the conference accounted for that by scheduling USC at UCLA and Arizona State at Arizona for the first week.
"We realize at the moment those are real hot spots, and the requisite authorities and approvals necessary are not there yet. By putting them the first week, in the event that these two teams in each of those two markets playing against each other winds up not being possible they become very easy to reschedule," Scott said. "Each those could reschedule into the bye week that you'll see on the calendar a few weeks later, or to the Dec. week that we left. So we're going in eyes wide open. We're going in contemplating that it's possible not all of our schools can start on Sept. 26, and for those that can't the way we've scheduled -- particularly in these two markets that at the moment are hot spots, they're very easily rescheduled to a bye week or the Dec. week, which is when you'd find a traditional rivalry game by the way. So we're contemplating the possibility."
As for the targeted Aug. 17 start date for preseason camp, Scott addressed that specifically:
"It's our expectation sitting here that all our programs will be able to start as early as then, but sitting here today they're not. So this is for some of our programs still subject to public health authorities and government-involved approvals," he said. "Everyone can start as early as Aug. 17, but it's not my expectation that everyone will start or manage their 25 [practices] the same way. ... If that proves to not be the case and schools can't start then and can't get a safe on ramp and preparation for the season then we will re-evaluate like everything about this -- we will re-evaluate along the way."
That was the overriding theme of the comments made by Scott, Arizona State athletic director Ray Anderson, Stanford football coach David Shaw and Oregon State senior associate AD Dr. Doug Aukerman.
Aukerman provided perspective on what it would take in-season to necessitate that a game be postponed or rescheduled. That too is a fluid matter, he said.
"That is a topic that we as a medical advisory group are trying to come up with some very specific criteria and benchmarks so that when we get to the point where we're ready to start the season and that occurs that we already have a decision pre-made to help guide those decisions," Aukerman said. "It's going to be different. It's really challenging because you can't just say it's a certain number of players, right? Because if you get a couple infections and they're coming from different sources and they're occurring within a day or two before a game, maybe you don't really have control of the transmission of the virus in that instance and you need to take a pause. Is it a couple cases early in the week and they're both related and both traceable and you can contact trace back to where they were, that's a much safer environment, situation and you know you have control over the transmission of the virus.
"So it's hard to come up with just an easy quick number. If it was, everybody in every conference would have already had that. Even among us positions in the A5, we had shared conversations and we have collegial relationships where we have calls outside of structured calls and are debating and kicking around this very topic, and it will be a complex decision for sure."
Meanwhile, Scott acknowledged the ultimate allowance of flexibility being having to consider whether to carry the season over into the spring if necessary. It sounds like that option -- and all options, for that matter -- remain on the table, even with this intended course of action with the 10-game fall schedule.
"Yes. I think we're trying to go about this in a very measured, thoughtful, step-by-step way. So we obviously set out hoping to play a full 12 games starting on time, but determined July 10 that wasn't going to be possible and we pivoted to scenario B, which for us was conference-only with a delayed start with these built-in flexibility features that we're talking about. We realized going in, for all the reasons we've talked about on this call, games could get rescheduled, may not be possible, no one can predict what's going to happen," Scott said. "We may not get 10 games in. We're hopeful and cautiously optimistic that we will, and that's the plan, but if we're not able to we may wind up with certain teams playing less than 10 games and we still try to finish on Dec. 19. The same thing may happen in other [conferences] and we're going to be working as a College Football Playoff management committee, and the guidance we get from the selection committee, for how to deal with that and still try to finish on time, even if not everyone's played the same number of games and give the selection committee guidance to choose four for a playoff and finish the season.
"But we also all recognize the best laid plans may not come to fruition, whether being able to start on the 26th, play a complement of the minimum number of games we feel would be required for a college football playoff, and we may start and not be able to finish and we will have to adjust. We'll have to adjust with a spring piece either to finish or to start, maybe delay dates for a playoff if it's still possible. There are many, many scenarios still on the table, but we felt it's critical at this point to be able to give some clarity of our plan for student-athletes and programs when we intend to play. If the health conditions allow us to and if things taper off the way we're hoping they will -- and there's early positive signs they will in our six markets -- we intend to start on Sept. 26. But we will be ready, as we have all along -- as we moved from Plan A to Plan B -- to C, D and E if necessary. We feel we owe that to our student-athletes."
**NOT SUBSCRIBED BUT WANT TO ACCESS OUR PREMIUM FORUM? Get a FREE TRIAL through Oct. 1 by signing up today using promo code USCFree2020 (must use the promo code). New subscribers can use this link here, while previous returning subscribers can start here and log-in first.**
