Every day there appears to be mounting outrage from fans, players and players' families in the Big Ten and PAC 12 over the cancellation of their season. They are speaking out and trying to reverse the decision. Some efforts appear even to be coordinated. Is there any such response to the cancellation of MWC sports?

#LetThemPlay!

It is the correct decision. Let's play, let's play until someone gets really sick and possibly dies. Then it's lawsuit after lawsuit and people crying that the conference did not care about the kids. This is a no win situation....it's like the mask debate. We may not like it or even accept it, but the world as we know it will never be like it was. Never!

I think sound minds are working to figure this out. We will all be glad someday that they did. But we can also keep whining and complaining too. We have that choice. I like the choice the Conference made. I'm not happy we are living through this, but I know we will get to a place sooner or later when it will be time to play. Even though I know how brilliant this board is and that most will disagree with me, I'm going to accept the decision made. If the decision was a bad one, I'll be first in line to say that. I believe the decision makers know a whole lot more about what's going on than I do. No one want's this to be happening.

Agezzz wrote: ↑

August 16th, 2020, 4:35 pm

It is the correct decision. Let's play, let's play until someone gets really sick and possibly dies. Then it's lawsuit after lawsuit and people crying that the conference did not care about the kids. This is a no win situation....it's like the mask debate. We may not like it or even accept it, but the world as we know it will never be like it was. Never!

I think sound minds are working to figure this out. We will all be glad someday that they did. But we can also keep whining and complaining too. We have that choice. I like the choice the Conference made. I'm not happy we are living through this, but I know we will get to a place sooner or later when it will be time to play. Even though I know how brilliant this board is and that most will disagree with me, I'm going to accept the decision made. If the decision was a bad one, I'll be first in line to say that. I believe the decision makers know a whole lot more about what's going on than I do. No one want's this to be happening.

It was just a question as to whether there were similar efforts as to the MWC. That's all. It was not whining or complaining about the decision. But, since you brought it up, "sound minds" also exist in the ACC, SEC and Big 12, and they have pursued a different approach. Ultimately, they may come to the same conclusion, but currently have decided to give it more time. As such, it's interesting to me that the MWC pulled the trigger was quick as it did, and knowing why might help people understand it. Instead, all we get is "the health and safety of our student athletes is paramount." Well they are saying the same thing in the other conferences currently open for business.

Pull trigger quickly.


Don't bother repenting.

Significant displeasure here. If one can't live with the risk, then one should not step onto the field. Give me a break!! Just stop it!! The risk is so low it's unfathomable to believe these kids would have a poor outcome if contracted. And, they/we need to get it, that's the absurdity of this circus!! We need to get it for herd immunity, it's going to come and go. It's going to run through humankind, either quickly or slowly. Please people!!

BigBlueBlood wrote: ↑

August 16th, 2020, 5:39 pm

Agezzz wrote: ↑

August 16th, 2020, 4:35 pm

It is the correct decision. Let's play, let's play until someone gets really sick and possibly dies. Then it's lawsuit after lawsuit and people crying that the conference did not care about the kids. This is a no win situation....it's like the mask debate. We may not like it or even accept it, but the world as we know it will never be like it was. Never!

I think sound minds are working to figure this out. We will all be glad someday that they did. But we can also keep whining and complaining too. We have that choice. I like the choice the Conference made. I'm not happy we are living through this, but I know we will get to a place sooner or later when it will be time to play. Even though I know how brilliant this board is and that most will disagree with me, I'm going to accept the decision made. If the decision was a bad one, I'll be first in line to say that. I believe the decision makers know a whole lot more about what's going on than I do. No one want's this to be happening.

It was just a question as to whether there were similar efforts as to the MWC. That's all. It was not whining or complaining about the decision. But, since you brought it up, "sound minds" also exist in the ACC, SEC and Big 12, and they have pursued a different approach. Ultimately, they may come to the same conclusion, but currently have decided to give it more time. As such, it's interesting to me that the MWC pulled the trigger was quick as it did, and knowing why might help people understand it. Instead, all we get is "the health and safety of our student athletes is paramount." Well they are saying the same thing in the other conferences currently open for business.

I'm not surprised the MW pulled the trigger when it did. I am absolutely shocked the Big 10 pulled the trigger when they did. The Big 10 at least with certain schools; Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska and maybe a few others have fanbases just as rabid as the SEC. They aren't going to be very tolerant of the decision if football continues for the other conferences.

I completely agree about the lack of transparency. There has not been good explanations given to fans on why things are the way they are. Not just about cancellations, but more importantly what is expected for sports to get back to where they need to be. The reality is sports are being played again. The NBA, MLB, Nascar, Pro Golf, Pro Soccer, NHL, UFC, etc. . are up and running. They are being played with no fans or limited fans, but they are continuing on. Why is college football shutting things down when all other major sports are finding ways to play?

If the huge concern was the possibility of asymptomatic players, coaches, and fans spreading this. For the SECOND time since early June, the W.H.O has come out and said that this is RARELY spread through asymptomatic carriers. If you are sick, keep your a$$ at home and let the rest of us enjoy some football and hoops!

aggies22 wrote: ↑

August 16th, 2020, 8:19 pm

If the huge concern was the possibility of asymptomatic players, coaches, and fans spreading this. For the SECOND time since early June, the W.H.O has come out and said that this is RARELY spread through asymptomatic carriers. If you are sick, keep your a$$ at home and let the rest of us enjoy some football and hoops!

That is very old information, and WHO quickly walked that statement back. From what I’ve read on health department web sites (including the CDC), Asymptomatic spreaders may cause over 50% of new infections (based on responses of infected people who did not know how they contracted the disease; i.e., they did not know they had contact with an infected person or a person who exhibited symptoms).

From a conference standpoint, it makes sense for the MWC to cancel as the TV contracts are too small to offset the losses of no road money game and No fans in The seats. For the P5 they get enough TV to more than offset the losses, which is why the 3 are going for it. I think those 3 leagues are going to make the other 2 look very bad when they have successful seasons.

calaggie wrote: ↑

August 16th, 2020, 8:41 pm

aggies22 wrote: ↑

August 16th, 2020, 8:19 pm

If the huge concern was the possibility of asymptomatic players, coaches, and fans spreading this. For the SECOND time since early June, the W.H.O has come out and said that this is RARELY spread through asymptomatic carriers. If you are sick, keep your a$$ at home and let the rest of us enjoy some football and hoops!

That is very old information, and WHO quickly walked that statement back. From what I’ve read on health department web sites (including the CDC), Asymptomatic spreaders may cause over 50% of new infections (based on responses of infected people who did not know how they contracted the disease; i.e., they did not know they had contact with an infected person or a person who exhibited symptoms).

Agezzz wrote: ↑

August 16th, 2020, 4:35 pm

It is the correct decision. Let's play, let's play until someone gets really sick and possibly dies. Then it's lawsuit after lawsuit and people crying that the conference did not care about the kids. This is a no win situation....it's like the mask debate. We may not like it or even accept it, but the world as we know it will never be like it was. Never!

I think sound minds are working to figure this out. We will all be glad someday that they did. But we can also keep whining and complaining too. We have that choice. I like the choice the Conference made. I'm not happy we are living through this, but I know we will get to a place sooner or later when it will be time to play. Even though I know how brilliant this board is and that most will disagree with me, I'm going to accept the decision made. If the decision was a bad one, I'll be first in line to say that. I believe the decision makers know a whole lot more about what's going on than I do. No one want's this to be happening.

https://media.tenor.com/images/cb9710f8 ... /tenor.gif

Really easy to ask a bunch of kids to put their long term health on the line when you don't have any skin in the game.

rAggie wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:09 am

Really easy to ask a bunch of kids to put their long term health on the line when you don't have any skin in the game.

One could say also say "laying out all the details and then allowing them to choose for themselves"

Using that same logic the game of football should never be played because there is too risk of injury or death is too high. If a player thinks the risk is too high they are not required to play. However people continue to play because they feel the benefits far outweigh the risks of playing. Other sports have figured out how to play with minimal risk including Utah high school football. I'm just wondering why college football couldn't figure it out when they had five months to prepare.

rAggie wrote:Really easy to ask a bunch of kids to put their long term health on the line when you don't have any skin in the game.

You’re not looking at the scientific data if you think it poses a significant health risk to young healthy college students. You’re fear mongering.

But yeah, don’t want to play ? Don’t play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:27 am

rAggie wrote:Really easy to ask a bunch of kids to put their long term health on the line when you don't have any skin in the game.

You’re not looking at the scientific data if you think it poses a significant health risk to young healthy college students. You’re fear mongering.

But yeah, don’t want to play ? Don’t play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The CDC director just warned of a potential worst fall in history. He is looking at the scientific data.

ChowderAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:27 am

rAggie wrote:Really easy to ask a bunch of kids to put their long term health on the line when you don't have any skin in the game.

You’re not looking at the scientific data if you think it poses a significant health risk to young healthy college students. You’re fear mongering.

But yeah, don’t want to play ? Don’t play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The CDC director just warned of a potential worst fall in history. He is looking at the scientific data.

That is completely false. The data does not back that up whatsoever.

Look up the mortality rate of healthy 18-22 year olds and get back to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:27 am

rAggie wrote:Really easy to ask a bunch of kids to put their long term health on the line when you don't have any skin in the game.

You’re not looking at the scientific data if you think it poses a significant health risk to young healthy college students. You’re fear mongering.

But yeah, don’t want to play ? Don’t play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You keep missing this point, what happens when they spread it to their professors? Their parents, grand parents? All who may be at risk?

I was hoping for a season too, but with a complete lack of planning from anyone on what a season would look like, HERE WE ARE! We were hoping HOPING the virus would have "gone away" in the heat of the summer, instead it was the opposite. Health experts warned, but some people just don't give a dam about others, so now we can't have nice things anymore. And now fall is looking to be really bad, with the combination of flu season and Covid-19, we're on track for 300K deaths by the end of the year. THAT IS 300K DEAD AMERICANS! THAT'S US! Sad.

ViAggie wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:58 am

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:27 am

rAggie wrote:Really easy to ask a bunch of kids to put their long term health on the line when you don't have any skin in the game.

You’re not looking at the scientific data if you think it poses a significant health risk to young healthy college students. You’re fear mongering.

But yeah, don’t want to play ? Don’t play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You keep missing this point, what happens when they spread it to their professors? Their parents, grand parents? All who may be at risk?

I was hoping for a season too, but with a complete lack of planning from anyone on what a season would look like, HERE WE ARE! We were hoping HOPING the virus would have "gone away" in the heat of the summer, instead it was the opposite. Health experts warned, but some people just don't give a dam about others, so now we can't have nice things anymore. And now fall is looking to be really bad, with the combination of flu season and Covid-19, we're on track for 300K deaths by the end of the year. THAT IS 300K DEAD AMERICANS! THAT'S US! Sad.

You're missing it Vi, I'm not even going to argue the intensity of the virus. It's here, and I don't even think a vaccine is going to change much, so we have to live with it. We all have choices to make. I just don't think anyone has the right to remove someone else's choice or make it for them. Everyone has to weigh their risks and make their own choices. When you go to the supermarket, you have no idea if someone there is sick or not, but you make that choice to go. If you're a teacher and you're worried about kids/students getting you sick, you need to make a choice. If you're a plumber, and you're concerned about going into someone's house, you need to make a choice.

Jjoey52 wrote: ↑

August 16th, 2020, 9:41 pm

From a conference standpoint, it makes sense for the MWC to cancel as the TV contracts are too small to offset the losses of no road money game and No fans in The seats. For the P5 they get enough TV to more than offset the losses, which is why the 3 are going for it. I think those 3 leagues are going to make the other 2 look very bad when they have successful seasons.

That may be some part of the MWC rational, yet USU is looking at a purported $6.5 M loss at the minimum with no football season and internal budgetary cutbacks are in play. Seems to me the T V contracts were making the financials work, at least in Logan.

ViAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:27 am

rAggie wrote:Really easy to ask a bunch of kids to put their long term health on the line when you don't have any skin in the game.

You’re not looking at the scientific data if you think it poses a significant health risk to young healthy college students. You’re fear mongering.

But yeah, don’t want to play ? Don’t play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You keep missing this point, what happens when they spread it to their professors? Their parents, grand parents? All who may be at risk?

I was hoping for a season too, but with a complete lack of planning from anyone on what a season would look like, HERE WE ARE! We were hoping HOPING the virus would have "gone away" in the heat of the summer, instead it was the opposite. Health experts warned, but some people just don't give a dam about others, so now we can't have nice things anymore. And now fall is looking to be really bad, with the combination of flu season and Covid-19, we're on track for 300K deaths by the end of the year. THAT IS 300K DEAD AMERICANS! THAT'S US! Sad.

No, you’re missing the point, or changing the argument, badly.

#1 rAggie was voicing faux concern about football players, you are voicing concern over professors. Two completely different demographics. So no, I’m not missing the point. There is very minimal, minuscule risk to college age football players. That’s the point I’m refuting to chowder and rAggie.

#2 but In regards to your post, yes you are still missing the point. Classes are in session across the country. Non football Students are coming in contact with teachers. Playing football or not playing football doesn’t really affect teachers. Don’t pretend that the Rona only affects football players who can pass it along.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agezzz wrote: ↑

August 16th, 2020, 4:35 pm

It is the correct decision. Let's play, let's play until someone gets really sick and possibly dies. Then it's lawsuit after lawsuit and people crying that the conference did not care about the kids. This is a no win situation....it's like the mask debate. We may not like it or even accept it, but the world as we know it will never be like it was. Never!

I think sound minds are working to figure this out. We will all be glad someday that they did. But we can also keep whining and complaining too. We have that choice. I like the choice the Conference made. I'm not happy we are living through this, but I know we will get to a place sooner or later when it will be time to play. Even though I know how brilliant this board is and that most will disagree with me, I'm going to accept the decision made. If the decision was a bad one, I'll be first in line to say that. I believe the decision makers know a whole lot more about what's going on than I do. No one want's this to be happening.

We seem to be accepting of the risk of players getting paralyzed or killed during practice or on Saturdays; living a life with battered limbs and TBI that may not show signs until middle age. All sans COVID.

Has COVID been our come to Jesus moment so we now shut down due to COVID?

If COVID is a reason to shut down college football, so is the risk of paralysis, death and life-time physical after-effects of football.

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:54 am

ChowderAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:27 am

rAggie wrote:Really easy to ask a bunch of kids to put their long term health on the line when you don't have any skin in the game.

You’re not looking at the scientific data if you think it poses a significant health risk to young healthy college students. You’re fear mongering.

But yeah, don’t want to play ? Don’t play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The CDC director just warned of a potential worst fall in history. He is looking at the scientific data.

That is completely false. The data does not back that up whatsoever.

Look up the mortality rate of healthy 18-22 year olds and get back to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m impressed you know more than the director of the CDC.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5 ... llow-covid

FloridaAggie13 wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 10:47 am

Agezzz wrote: ↑

August 16th, 2020, 4:35 pm

It is the correct decision. Let's play, let's play until someone gets really sick and possibly dies. Then it's lawsuit after lawsuit and people crying that the conference did not care about the kids. This is a no win situation....it's like the mask debate. We may not like it or even accept it, but the world as we know it will never be like it was. Never!

I think sound minds are working to figure this out. We will all be glad someday that they did. But we can also keep whining and complaining too. We have that choice. I like the choice the Conference made. I'm not happy we are living through this, but I know we will get to a place sooner or later when it will be time to play. Even though I know how brilliant this board is and that most will disagree with me, I'm going to accept the decision made. If the decision was a bad one, I'll be first in line to say that. I believe the decision makers know a whole lot more about what's going on than I do. No one want's this to be happening.

We seem to be accepting of the risk of players getting paralyzed or killed during practice or on Saturdays; living a life with battered limbs and TBI that may not show signs until middle age. All sans COVID.

Has COVID been our come to Jesus moment so we now shut down due to COVID?

If COVID is a reason to shut down college football, so is the risk of paralysis, death and life-time physical after-effects of football.

I have been thinking about the risk of Playing Football and what happens when a Kid signs on with a University. Are there legal documents that have to be signed by a Recruit saying that the Recruit will not take legal action against the School IF a severe life threatening injury happens while Playing Football for the University?

Last week I was listening to The Odd Couple on FOX News Radio. A caller tried to bring up the Data about how College aged Kids are at a very low risk. Chris Broussard and Rob Parker interrupted & attacked the Guy saying that playing Football with Covid 19 is so safe that University's want the Players to sign a waiver to play. The question is Don't the Players do that when they start playing anyway?

ChowderAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:54 am

ChowderAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:27 am

rAggie wrote:Really easy to ask a bunch of kids to put their long term health on the line when you don't have any skin in the game.

You’re not looking at the scientific data if you think it poses a significant health risk to young healthy college students. You’re fear mongering.

But yeah, don’t want to play ? Don’t play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The CDC director just warned of a potential worst fall in history. He is looking at the scientific data.

That is completely false. The data does not back that up whatsoever.

Look up the mortality rate of healthy 18-22 year olds and get back to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m impressed you know more than the director of the CDC.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5 ... llow-covid

Still waiting for the mortality rate of 18-22 year olds.

Besides, what are you even talking about? What does telling people we are gonna have a bad fall if people don’t wear masks have to do with whether or not there should be a football season because of the risks college football players face? That has nothing to do with anything.

People love data and science up until it contradicts their opinions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 1:09 pm

ChowderAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:54 am

ChowderAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:27 am

rAggie wrote:Really easy to ask a bunch of kids to put their long term health on the line when you don't have any skin in the game.

You’re not looking at the scientific data if you think it poses a significant health risk to young healthy college students. You’re fear mongering.

But yeah, don’t want to play ? Don’t play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The CDC director just warned of a potential worst fall in history. He is looking at the scientific data.

That is completely false. The data does not back that up whatsoever.

Look up the mortality rate of healthy 18-22 year olds and get back to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m impressed you know more than the director of the CDC.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5 ... llow-covid

Still waiting for the mortality rate of 18-22 year olds.

Besides, what are you even talking about? What does telling people we are gonna have a bad fall if people don’t wear masks have to do with whether or not there should be a football season because of the risks college football players face? That has nothing to do with anything.

People love data and science up until it contradicts their opinions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 1:09 pm

ChowderAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:54 am

ChowderAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:27 am

rAggie wrote:Really easy to ask a bunch of kids to put their long term health on the line when you don't have any skin in the game.

You’re not looking at the scientific data if you think it poses a significant health risk to young healthy college students. You’re fear mongering.

But yeah, don’t want to play ? Don’t play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The CDC director just warned of a potential worst fall in history. He is looking at the scientific data.

That is completely false. The data does not back that up whatsoever.

Look up the mortality rate of healthy 18-22 year olds and get back to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m impressed you know more than the director of the CDC.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5 ... llow-covid

Still waiting for the mortality rate of 18-22 year olds.

Besides, what are you even talking about? What does telling people we are gonna have a bad fall if people don’t wear masks have to do with whether or not there should be a football season because of the risks college football players face? That has nothing to do with anything.

People love data and science up until it contradicts their opinions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or in this case, has little relevance to their opinions. The issue of canceling the season hinges on a few issues, which I don't think the ADs/Presidents have weighed correctly

1. Willingness of CFB players to risk getting COVID + community spread the longterm effects aren't yet known, but the short term effects are fairly benign to healthy players aged 18-22. Do players want to play? It seems there's a growing quorum who do. Are they really putting the community at greater risk by playing under strict protocols versus not? Who knows. I tend to think players running around at home with less structure are at greater risk for community spread.

2. Legal Liability: Because the long term effects aren't known, might the NCAA/Schools get sued longterm? Who knows. I think the uncertainty bothers them. I can't imagine the longterm legal costs would be greater than a lost season of revenue

3. Player Safety: This one bothers me the most. Which is worse for the health of the players.. risk getting COVID and potentially spreading it or playing 18-24 games in 8 months? If I'm a player with a shot at the NFL i'm giving these conferences the middle finger telling me to play this Spring.

One thing that has really bothered me about this whole thing is the moving goal posts. At first it was.. give the hospitals time to catch up. When we did that it was... there can be ZERO cases ever of the virus. We want to control the spread where we can, but at what point do we live our lives, deal with the risk and accept that hospitals are getting better at treating this?

Madmartigan wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 3:01 pm

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 1:09 pm

ChowderAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:54 am

ChowderAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:27 am

rAggie wrote:Really easy to ask a bunch of kids to put their long term health on the line when you don't have any skin in the game.

You’re not looking at the scientific data if you think it poses a significant health risk to young healthy college students. You’re fear mongering.

But yeah, don’t want to play ? Don’t play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The CDC director just warned of a potential worst fall in history. He is looking at the scientific data.

That is completely false. The data does not back that up whatsoever.

Look up the mortality rate of healthy 18-22 year olds and get back to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m impressed you know more than the director of the CDC.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5 ... llow-covid

Still waiting for the mortality rate of 18-22 year olds.

Besides, what are you even talking about? What does telling people we are gonna have a bad fall if people don’t wear masks have to do with whether or not there should be a football season because of the risks college football players face? That has nothing to do with anything.

People love data and science up until it contradicts their opinions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or in this case, has little relevance to their opinions. The issue of canceling the season hinges on a few issues, which I don't think the ADs/Presidents have weighed correctly

1. Willingness of CFB players to risk getting COVID + community spread the longterm effects aren't yet known, but the short term effects are fairly benign to healthy players aged 18-22. Do players want to play? It seems there's a growing quorum who do. Are they really putting the community at greater risk by playing under strict protocols versus not? Who knows. I tend to think players running around at home with less structure are at greater risk for community spread.

2. Legal Liability: Because the long term effects aren't known, might the NCAA/Schools get sued longterm? Who knows. I think the uncertainty bothers them. I can't imagine the longterm legal costs would be greater than a lost season of revenue

3. Player Safety: This one bothers me the most. Which is worse for the health of the players.. risk getting COVID and potentially spreading it or playing 18-24 games in 8 months? If I'm a player with a shot at the NFL i'm giving these conferences the middle finger telling me to play this Spring.

One thing that has really bothered me about this whole thing is the moving goal posts. At first it was.. give the hospitals time to catch up. When we did that it was... there can be ZERO cases ever of the virus. We want to control the spread where we can, but at what point do we live our lives, deal with the risk and accept that hospitals are getting better at treating this?

Great post. The question is not necessarily "is it safe to play football"? It is "is playing football materially less safe than not playing football"? I don't think the answer to the second question is yes, and that is not taking into account the secondary costs of not playing (or other measures taken to slow the spread of the virus). I would argue players are in a more vulnerable position without playing than with and the rest of campus stakeholders in no worse of a position. Players should be able to decide that for themselves and those vulnerable or high risk people in the campus ecosystem should be encouraged to take all reasonable precautions.

Players weigh the risk of heat stroke, TBI, spinal injury, life-altering injuries to bones, joints, or ligaments, and the risk of other communicable diseases (flu, mono, etc.) or bacterial infections.

If one could be certain, or close to certain, that not playing would materially lower the risk to players and those in the community, that would be a compelling reason not to play. But so far, the discussion makes me think that point 2 above is ruling the day.

ViAggie wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:58 am

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:27 am

rAggie wrote:Really easy to ask a bunch of kids to put their long term health on the line when you don't have any skin in the game.

You’re not looking at the scientific data if you think it poses a significant health risk to young healthy college students. You’re fear mongering.

But yeah, don’t want to play ? Don’t play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You keep missing this point, what happens when they spread it to their professors? Their parents, grand parents? All who may be at risk?

I was hoping for a season too, but with a complete lack of planning from anyone on what a season would look like, HERE WE ARE! We were hoping HOPING the virus would have "gone away" in the heat of the summer, instead it was the opposite. Health experts warned, but some people just don't give a dam about others, so now we can't have nice things anymore. And now fall is looking to be really bad, with the combination of flu season and Covid-19, we're on track for 300K deaths by the end of the year. THAT IS 300K DEAD AMERICANS! THAT'S US! Sad.

Vi, I understand what you are arguing here, but I don't think the argument of spread to non-football players works, unless we have fans, or at least a lot of them attending. It appears that the players and coaches, especially with COVID safety protocols, really don't have any better chance becoming infected and spreading as compared to not playing. Granted, more contact means a better chance of infection and/or spreading. However, while playing football, the players are subject to the team COVID rules, which do limit contact and other group interaction, and include constant testing, oversight and peer pressure/responsiblity to be careful and to watch out for your teammates, limitations of going home, etc. Cancelling the season throws all of this out the window. The players enter the general population and have as much, if not more, risk of becoming infected and spreading it to family members, friends, professors, etc. Now, cramming 25k fans into the stadium every other Saturday is a different issue, and I would agree most likely would increase infections, but that's not what we are discussing. Players can opt out without any repercussions, and many across the nation have done so. I would never ask a college athlete to risk getting sick so I can be entertained. Instead, under the current circumstances, it's fair to ask whether a college athlete should be given the choice, or whether it should be made for them. I land on the former.

Intermeddler wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 3:55 pm

Madmartigan wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 3:01 pm

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 1:09 pm

ChowderAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:54 am

ChowderAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:27 am

rAggie wrote:Really easy to ask a bunch of kids to put their long term health on the line when you don't have any skin in the game.

You’re not looking at the scientific data if you think it poses a significant health risk to young healthy college students. You’re fear mongering.

But yeah, don’t want to play ? Don’t play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The CDC director just warned of a potential worst fall in history. He is looking at the scientific data.

That is completely false. The data does not back that up whatsoever.

Look up the mortality rate of healthy 18-22 year olds and get back to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m impressed you know more than the director of the CDC.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5 ... llow-covid

Still waiting for the mortality rate of 18-22 year olds.

Besides, what are you even talking about? What does telling people we are gonna have a bad fall if people don’t wear masks have to do with whether or not there should be a football season because of the risks college football players face? That has nothing to do with anything.

People love data and science up until it contradicts their opinions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or in this case, has little relevance to their opinions. The issue of canceling the season hinges on a few issues, which I don't think the ADs/Presidents have weighed correctly

1. Willingness of CFB players to risk getting COVID + community spread the longterm effects aren't yet known, but the short term effects are fairly benign to healthy players aged 18-22. Do players want to play? It seems there's a growing quorum who do. Are they really putting the community at greater risk by playing under strict protocols versus not? Who knows. I tend to think players running around at home with less structure are at greater risk for community spread.

2. Legal Liability: Because the long term effects aren't known, might the NCAA/Schools get sued longterm? Who knows. I think the uncertainty bothers them. I can't imagine the longterm legal costs would be greater than a lost season of revenue

3. Player Safety: This one bothers me the most. Which is worse for the health of the players.. risk getting COVID and potentially spreading it or playing 18-24 games in 8 months? If I'm a player with a shot at the NFL i'm giving these conferences the middle finger telling me to play this Spring.

One thing that has really bothered me about this whole thing is the moving goal posts. At first it was.. give the hospitals time to catch up. When we did that it was... there can be ZERO cases ever of the virus. We want to control the spread where we can, but at what point do we live our lives, deal with the risk and accept that hospitals are getting better at treating this?

Great post. The question is not necessarily "is it safe to play football"? It is "is playing football materially less safe than not playing football"? I don't think the answer to the second question is yes, and that is not taking into account the secondary costs of not playing (or other measures taken to slow the spread of the virus). I would argue players are in a more vulnerable position without playing than with and the rest of campus stakeholders in no worse of a position. Players should be able to decide that for themselves and those vulnerable or high risk people in the campus ecosystem should be encouraged to take all reasonable precautions.

Players weigh the risk of heat stroke, TBI, spinal injury, life-altering injuries to bones, joints, or ligaments, and the risk of other communicable diseases (flu, mono, etc.) or bacterial infections.

If one could be certain, or close to certain, that not playing would materially lower the risk to players and those in the community, that would be a compelling reason not to play. But so far, the discussion makes me think that point 2 above is ruling the day.

I think you might be right, and it's possible with many of the state universities, their AG's have told them to shut it down, and insurance carriers for private universities have told them the same, but generally I think I'd rather be arguing a university's case than a player's in such a lawsuit, if for no other reason than causation will be close to impossible to prove. I don't know how a player could ever establish that he contracted COVID while participating in football, as opposed to walking around campus, riding the bus or going to the store. The timing of symptom onset is all over the place, and with asymptomatic people, the issue made even more impossible to trace for purposes of removing enough speculation to get the case to a jury. In fact, a counterclaim is just as likely against the player for failing to be careful and for "bringing" the virus to the team or exposing others to it. Also, if the school has any kind of reasonable protocol and follows it, I don't see it being negligent. Lastly, and quite importantly, if every player is educated about the risk of contracting COVID, and even that there are risk we don't even know about, and is allowed to opt out of the season and maintain his scholarship, yet chooses to play, they have met the very definition of assuming the risk of playing. Granted, it costs a lot of money to defend a lawsuit, win or lose, and the stars could align and the facts line up perfectly for a big, successful suit, but, it seems a risk worth taking if that is the rationale for cancelling the season. Any other such suit seems doomed from the beginning. Also, the big money conferences going forward have more to lose and currently seem unconcerned about it. I think it's more the possible PR issues that frighten the administrators, than it is the legal.

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 1:09 pm

ChowderAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:54 am

ChowderAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:27 am

rAggie wrote:Really easy to ask a bunch of kids to put their long term health on the line when you don't have any skin in the game.

You’re not looking at the scientific data if you think it poses a significant health risk to young healthy college students. You’re fear mongering.

But yeah, don’t want to play ? Don’t play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The CDC director just warned of a potential worst fall in history. He is looking at the scientific data.

That is completely false. The data does not back that up whatsoever.

Look up the mortality rate of healthy 18-22 year olds and get back to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m impressed you know more than the director of the CDC.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5 ... llow-covid

Still waiting for the mortality rate of 18-22 year olds.

Besides, what are you even talking about? What does telling people we are gonna have a bad fall if people don’t wear masks have to do with whether or not there should be a football season because of the risks college football players face? That has nothing to do with anything.

People love data and science up until it contradicts their opinions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you were the one that brought up mortality rates, as I made no mention of them in my post.

I take warnings from the CDC very seriously. UNC thought they could move forward with traditional classes. This lasted a few days and they are now online. My guess is USU will be all online by Thanksgiving as well.

I believe the potential of the worst health crisis in history this fall has implications for many aspects of life, including college football. I’m grateful those in charge of USU and the MW recognize this as well and are taking precautions now. They obviously see the connection that you don’t.

ChowderAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 1:09 pm

ChowderAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:54 am

ChowderAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:27 am

rAggie wrote:Really easy to ask a bunch of kids to put their long term health on the line when you don't have any skin in the game.

You’re not looking at the scientific data if you think it poses a significant health risk to young healthy college students. You’re fear mongering.

But yeah, don’t want to play ? Don’t play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The CDC director just warned of a potential worst fall in history. He is looking at the scientific data.

That is completely false. The data does not back that up whatsoever.

Look up the mortality rate of healthy 18-22 year olds and get back to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m impressed you know more than the director of the CDC.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5 ... llow-covid

Still waiting for the mortality rate of 18-22 year olds.

Besides, what are you even talking about? What does telling people we are gonna have a bad fall if people don’t wear masks have to do with whether or not there should be a football season because of the risks college football players face? That has nothing to do with anything.

People love data and science up until it contradicts their opinions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you were the one that brought up mortality rates, as I made no mention of them in my post.

I take warnings from the CDC very seriously. UNC thought they could move forward with traditional classes. This lasted a few days and they are now online. My guess is USU will be all online by Thanksgiving as well.

I believe the potential of the worst health crisis in history this fall has implications for many aspects of life, including college football. I’m grateful those in charge of USU and the MW recognize this as well and are taking precautions now. They obviously see the connection that you don’t.

I started this by making the claim that for college aged football players the risk is very minimal. I encourage you and others to do the research regarding the mortality rate. The data and science back up my claim that the risk to college athletes is minuscule.

You then provided at article talking about how if people don’t wear masks in the fall, there will be a serious mix of flu and COVID cases, which has almost nothing to do with college aged football players.

Take warnings from the CDC to wear a mask all you want. It’s certainly a good idea but it’s not relevant to college age football kids dying.

You’re right, I don’t see the connection. I think it’s been a huge overreaction for certain demographics, especially young healthy kids. And the virus may never go away. So you either need to prepare yourself to live with a virus that 99.5% survive or build a bunker in your backyard and live in it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ChowderAggie wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 6:49 pm

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 1:09 pm

ChowderAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:54 am

ChowderAggie wrote:

2004AG wrote: ↑

August 17th, 2020, 9:27 am

rAggie wrote:Really easy to ask a bunch of kids to put their long term health on the line when you don't have any skin in the game.

You’re not looking at the scientific data if you think it poses a significant health risk to young healthy college students. You’re fear mongering.

But yeah, don’t want to play ? Don’t play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The CDC director just warned of a potential worst fall in history. He is looking at the scientific data.

That is completely false. The data does not back that up whatsoever.

Look up the mortality rate of healthy 18-22 year olds and get back to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m impressed you know more than the director of the CDC.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5 ... llow-covid

Still waiting for the mortality rate of 18-22 year olds.

Besides, what are you even talking about? What does telling people we are gonna have a bad fall if people don’t wear masks have to do with whether or not there should be a football season because of the risks college football players face? That has nothing to do with anything.

People love data and science up until it contradicts their opinions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you were the one that brought up mortality rates, as I made no mention of them in my post.

I take warnings from the CDC very seriously. UNC thought they could move forward with traditional classes. This lasted a few days and they are now online. My guess is USU will be all online by Thanksgiving as well.

I believe the potential of the worst health crisis in history this fall has implications for many aspects of life, including college football. I’m grateful those in charge of USU and the MW recognize this as well and are taking precautions now. They obviously see the connection that you don’t.

I take Covid very seriously, but I do want more clarification on why every major sport other than college football is able to continue, but college football has to be cancelled. Even high school football is starting up again in most places. There should definitely be strong precautions and strong regulations in place, but it doesn't mean college sports should be cancelled for the year.

Thank you!