A tweet from a former major leaguer, Trevor Plouffe, ignited quite a conversation in Major League Baseball circles this week.

Plouffe, citing baseball sources, said players were being told to plan to report to a second spring training around June 10 with a July 1 Opening Day to be played at ballparks around the country.

It was similar to what I wrote about in 10 Weekend Thoughts last Sunday. An MLB friend of mine told me something very similar, adding that the plan was for fans to be allowed in games as early as mid-August if things progressed positively as it pertains to the coronavirus pandemic.

Plouffe has been proven right, though some baseball reporters have pushed back a bit, calling Plouffe's dates a best-case scenario.

From The Athletic:

Indians officials, on a Zoom call that included about 70 members of the organization, estimated the season would begin after a three-week ramp-up, putting the start of Spring Training 2.0 around June 10, another date Plouffe specified. But the officials made it clear the dates were mere targets, fully expected to change. They simply wanted players to be prepared if the league meets all of the logistical challenges necessary to play.

Which still is no sure thing.

League and club officials remain confident the sport will return in 2020, but a number of team executives were fretting Tuesday over the possibility of outbreaks of the virus in states starting to open up, such as Florida, Texas and Arizona, which often are mentioned as potential hubs in various startup plans. New surges might lead to additional shutdowns, making it difficult for baseball to resume.

The league’s goal, according to sources, is to open in as many home cities as possible, a scenario that would be more convenient for the players than out-of-town hubs, particularly if Spring Training 2.0 also takes place mostly in home parks. Playing at home, even without fans, also would be a sign of normalcy returning in those cities, an idea that appeals to many politicians as well as league officials.

The stakes are enormous for commissioner Rob Manfred, who remains clear that health will be the No. 1 consideration as baseball plots its course. The league will follow the lead of its medical experts, knowing that a serious illness or death would be not only a terrible tragedy, but a poor reflection on the sport. The need to shut down the game after it had resumed would present its own issues. Yet with so much unknown, Manfred is taking a chance with whatever decision he makes.

And there's more. A setback of any sort would knock MLB off a July 1 path. Again, from The Athletic:

The next three weeks, then, are critical for baseball. If the virus erupts in enough places, the league might need to rethink any possibility of starting spring training in early June and the season in early July. The threat of a second wave of COVID-19 hitting in the fall might leave the sport even less room to maneuver.

Sounds discouraging, but we’re talking about a snapshot in time. One league official points out that at the end of March, few would have predicted optimism about the sport’s return only a month later. At one point, starting the season with all 30 teams quarantined in Arizona seemed the most likely scenario for a restart. Now, it is considered the least desirable option.

Greater availability of testing is a must; players will need to undergo regular tests and daily temperature checks to ensure the infection of one team member does not require an entire club to shut down. A vaccine will not be ready in time for this season, and maybe not even next season, creating potential issues for 2021. But the development of medicines to effectively treat COVID-19 would reduce the health risks, and if the numbers trend in the right direction, the sport might push forward with a shortened season and adjust as warranted.

That's the thing. Plans do have to be made, and they take time to implement. There are logistical issues. The players have scattered all over the country. There is not yet a labor agreement in place. How would players' health be tested and protected? From the New York Post:

MLB, though, gets its big national TV check for the postseason. And there are public health concerns that cooler weather in the fall will initiate another strong wave of the virus. MLB would not want to get to November, be into the playoffs and have to halt the season again and leave so much of its money on the table.

Will MLB and its players be able to find common ground on all these issues? That is why it is seen as urgent to start now, just in case the best outcome arrives and games can be played in early July. The thought process is if the virus does not allow a return in July, then the sides will have created a framework for, say, a season to start in August. But if they do not begin now then the calendar will begin to work against them just in case they could play in July.

College football administrators are certainly cheering for Major League Baseball. I talked to several college athletics people over the last week who admitted a successful MLB launch would make it much easier to start the process of preparing for a college football season.

College athletics administrators are planning for an on-time start to the season. They're planning on playing the entire season as scheduled. They're planning. That's their job. But they don't know what's going to happen. No one does.

From my friend Andy Staples at The Athletic:

The story Stewart Mandel and I wrote that was published Tuesday — that some schools may not be ready to play and that the other schools may play without them — is a potential reality. It isn’t what any of those conference leaders wants, but it may wind up the best path forward on a road for which there is no map. Maybe they’ll play on time but without fans. Maybe they’ll delay the season and have fans in the stands. At this point, they don’t know.

They might know more in the next few weeks. The reopening of certain businesses in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas should provide new data, or at least a new lens through which to view the data. If the COVID-19 infection and death numbers in those states remain flat in spite of increased activity, it might suggest a path forward for the rest of the states. It might move us toward something approximating normal sooner. On the flipside, if the numbers spike in those states, then it may mean we have to wait even longer for normal. We’re all rooting for the former. But no matter how optimistic we are, the decision-makers can only follow the numbers.

“We pay a great deal of attention to what’s happening across our states and obviously across the country,” (SEC commissioner Greg) Sankey said. “We are very interested in whatever trends develop over the next several weeks. There’s a period of the end of that sentence, because I don’t know what that means. We need to pay attention and see what does transpire.”

There’s that phrase again. Sankey doesn’t know what it means (yet) because we won’t get reliable data for a few weeks because of the incubation period of the virus. When data do begin to roll in, they could be quite meaningful. But before that, none of these commissioners wants to box himself in with a statement that the season will definitely happen on time or that the season would certainly be delayed. They don’t know.

When will they know whether the season can start on time? Hopefully by the end of this month. But maybe not until early July. “One of the pieces of advice given to me that has embedded is that if you can wait to make major decisions, you’ll have better information available to support that decision-making process,” Sankey said.

So they wait until they can get the most possible information to make the best possible decision. And it drives us crazy, because until that moment comes the best answer they can give is “I don’t know.”

But that’s the only accurate answer now. We’re going to have to live with it for a little bit longer.

The Stadium's Brett McMurphy has done a tremendous job the past two months working on the story about how -- and if -- college football will return this fall. He had another strong piece on Thursday, one that ignited plenty of discussions.

Here's the lede:

Multiple conference commissioners told Stadium that student-athletes would not be prevented from returning to campus to play football this season if classes are limited to online-only instruction.

This is a dramatic shift from just a few weeks ago, when many college administrators indicated the general student body would need to return to on-campus classes in order for student-athletes to participate in college football. Those decisions – whether to play if the campus is closed to general students but open to student-athletes – ultimately will be made by the individual school presidents or chancellors.

“Going to class in an online sense is satisfactory,” Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby said. “There’s room for that to happen. School has to be in session, student-athletes have to be going to class.”

Am I the only person on Earth who sees this as a simply awful idea? First, for the record, I'm for allowing the players to return to campus as soon as possible and I'm all for a camp-like quarantine to prepare them for the season. However, the idea of essentially locking the players up for five months so that schools can get the television money is absurd. It's ludicrous.

Many players wouldn't go for it, and they shouldn't. Unlike professional sports, there is no college football union. Who represents their thoughts?

A Power Five athletic director, who was granted anonymity, adamantly told The Stadium that a football season could be played without the general student body on campus.

“Why can’t you play football on campuses that are closed?” the athletic director asked. “If classes are being offered online, there is no restriction on where you complete the course work. You would need an easily-administered COVID-19 test that is available to every athletic department. Test the student-athletes, coaches, trainers and support personnel to make sure that your cohort is free of virus. Quarantine the cohort for practice, online classes, food service and leisure time activities. This would be a very safe environment.

“Many of our athletes were taking a significant portion of their credit hours online long before the virus showed up. The only difference would be an empty campus, theoretically an even safer environment.”

No. Just no. They're student-athletes, not employees -- unless you want to give them salaries that they collectively bargain. I'm not alone in that sentiment.

“You can’t have student-athletes back in competition without general students back on campus,” a Group of Five athletic director told McMurphy. “That’s not a good look and a lot of liability that the presidents and chancellors shouldn’t make alone.”

On top of that, if fans aren't allowed in games, a lot of college football programs just aren't going to get going, and that's before we even get into the COVID-19 aspects of the decision. If there are no fans, there's no financial incentive for schools that play in leagues with insignificant television contracts.

Who knows? Maybe this leads to some revolutionary realignment. I don't know. No one does -- at least not yet. From The Stadium:

Bowlsby said it’s possible some conferences could play, even if not all 10 leagues could compete. Last week, Sankey, of the SEC, told Jacksonville radio station 1010 XL’s Matt Hayes that “there is room for different conferences to make different decisions.”

“It’s not inconceivable at all,” Bowlsby said, “that they could be playing in the Big Ten and not the Pac-12, or we’re playing in the Big 12 and they’re not playing in the SEC. Conferences will work together, but we’re not pledged to be in lockstep.”

Scott, of the Pac-12, said it’s “very, very highly unlikely” that the Pac-12 “would start a season without all (members) playing.”

“If we want to play a full season, want bowl games and the College Football Playoff, we all have to move together,” Scott said. “We have to agree on the same system.”

Thompson (Mountain West), MacLeod (C-USA) and Steinbrecher (MAC) said it’s too early to know if their leagues would play without all members.

Again, my opinion is games should be played with fans. Perhaps fans must be phased in, but college games without fans is an awful look. Perhaps fans have to be socially distanced -- South Carolina athletics director Ray Tanner said that's the plan in Columbia -- but the players have to be allowed to have lives. They have families. Some are married. Some have children. Asking them to give up their lives for five months or more is wrong.

Simply put: If the game isn't safe for fans, it's not safe for the players. My personal belief is that by August, things are going to look much better and everyone is going to feel confident in celebrating college football. Many administrators agree with me and they're making plans accordingly.

However, they don't know. I don't know. No one knows. And it's OK to admit that.

Have a great weekend.