Mack Brown does not see college football taking place without fans, and he has a pretty simple explanation for his position.
Brown was a guest on “The Paul Finebaum Show” on Tuesday and said he does not see college football going on without fans. His reason? If it’s not safe enough for fans, then it’s not safe enough for players.
North Carolina coach Mack Brown echoed the comments from Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick. "I can’t see us playing without fans because if it’s not safe enough for the fans, it’s not safe enough for the players."
— Paul Finebaum (@finebaum) April 7, 2020
"If it's not safe for fans, then it's not safe for players."
– @TarHeelFootball's @CoachMackBrown doesn't believe that football will be back until EVERYONE can attend.
FULL COMMENTS: pic.twitter.com/uK4cfUgfTl
— Paul Finebaum (@finebaum) April 7, 2020
Brown, who just completed his first season as the head coach at North Carolina, seems to make sense with his opinion. But his opinion also does not consider the crux of the reason for the avoidance of large gatherings.
The big reason for the economic shutdowns and shelter-in-place orders has been to avoid the healthcare systems getting overwhelmed with too many people ill at the same time. If the amount of sick people outweigh the healthcare system’s capacity for care, that would create significantly more health problems, which is what we are all trying to avoid (i.e. “flatten the curve”). But the answer is not to shut down all life until there is a vaccine. Even Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who has emphasized the importance of following social distancing measures, has warned against a total indefinite shutdown because of the unintended economic and societal consequences.
Many experts have said the spread of the virus is inevitable and many people will end up being affected. The issue is that having 50,000 or even 100,000 people in close quarters at the same time, such as inside a stadium for a football game, could lead to massive spread of the virus. But a smaller gathering, of say, 200 people on the field for a football game, would not increase the spread of the virus at the same rate.
The thinking is that the healthcare system would have the capacity to provide proper care if the virus spreads at a slower rate, which is what we are trying to achieve.
That is why a football game without fans might be able to be played safely without the risk of overloading the healthcare system. But when it comes to the risk of adding in that many fans, the question is: would that be necessary? That is a debate officials will have, and we already have an idea of what some political figures believe.
