[McKenwood]

Aside from the rules of it all, there is the principle that the University should respect its students medical privacy unless there is a compelling reason not to.

BC

So what should be out there? Based on full medical privacy, players' heights and weights should not be out there. Based on what Stanford publishes it has a lot of players that are obese and even morbidly obese based on BMI indexes.

The covid disclosure issue is a tipping point for me. If the UofMiss Rebels can be at 100% vaccinated then Stanford better be. No exemptions except for medical ones. And if you have such a medical condition probably not a great idea to be playing football.

The unvaccinated players on the Stanford team, if there are any, put themselves first and should not be part of the team.

---

Aside from the rules of it all, there is the principle that the University should respect its students medical privacy unless there is a compelling reason not to.

BC

That's a nice framing of the issue.

On the pro-disclosure side, we have:
- The fan's right to know. I have the right to know if I'm going to follow this team.
- Importance in dealing with the Global Health Crisis / knowing how and where Covid is spreading. 
- Accuracy of betting lines.

On the con side, we have:
- Students' right to privacy.

I personally see nothing compelling on the pro-disclosure side.  I just see a bunch of rationalizations for people wanting to know for their own selfish reasons. If the Covid-positive individual is following protocols and in isolation, and if contact tracing has occurred to the extent that it ever does, how is this private information going to help anyone else? The University Covid dashboard provides ample statistics.  

Should the University concern itself with the accuracy of betting lines, because this might somehow have an indirect impact on their football revenue stream? (I really think that's a stretch.)

I also perceive that some are trying to nullify the right to privacy, because the right-to-know arguments are admittedly pretty weak. If it had proven viable, I would have been on-board with the anonymous use of medical data to track and prevent the spread of the virus.  But you lose me when it comes down to public disclosure of individual cases among students or anyone, except to the close contacts themselves.  As a fan, I'm super curious to know, but I claim no right to know.  The public's right to know does not outweigh the individual's right to privacy in this case.  

On a side note, I feel the same way about many aspects of the Internet - including someone's Google search results from events that allegedly might or might not have occurred 15 years ago.  I'm surprised that a lot of the old-timers on this board don't seem to care about this issue, despite having grown up in a different world (as I did, barely) where you could have been a complete f*ck-up at age 20 and nobody would be the wiser 15 years later when you're going for an important job.  (I'm digressing from Covid or athletic performance here, which don't carry the kind of stigma or cause the same negative first impression that certain stupid but ultimately harmless actions might carry, if they're recorded on websites and indexed by search engines for all eternity.)

Mr. Sagehen you completely miss my point on the betting lines. Full information will not harm the University's revenue stream. It will protect it from scandal where bettors looking for every edge will be canvassing for information on college campuses as to who is playing or not playing as the case may be.  Again this is the reason for the NFL has its injury reports. Stanford could simply be vaguer and just have a Thursday night report as to which players are available for Saturday's game. Instead we get guys like Coach Shaw who come from the football coach as a paranoid realm that use the information disclosure requirements to block most everything.

[McKenwood]

Aside from the rules of it all, there is the principle that the University should respect its students medical privacy unless there is a compelling reason not to.

BC

So what should be out there? Based on full medical privacy, players' heights and weights should not be out there. Based on what Stanford publishes it has a lot of players that are obese and even morbidly obese based on BMI indexes.

The covid disclosure issue is a tipping point for me. If the UofMiss Rebels can be at 100% vaccinated then Stanford better be. No exemptions except for medical ones. And if you have such a medical condition probably not a great idea to be playing football.

The unvaccinated players on the Stanford team, if there are any, put themselves first and should not be part of the team.

---

Aside from the rules of it all, there is the principle that the University should respect its students medical privacy unless there is a compelling reason not to.

BC

That's a nice framing of the issue.

On the pro-disclosure side, we have:
- The fan's right to know. I have the right to know if I'm going to follow this team.
- Importance in dealing with the Global Health Crisis / knowing how and where Covid is spreading. 
- Accuracy of betting lines.

On the con side, we have:
- Students' right to privacy.

I personally see nothing compelling on the pro-disclosure side.  I just see a bunch of rationalizations for people wanting to know for their own selfish reasons. If the Covid-positive individual is following protocols and in isolation, and if contact tracing has occurred to the extent that it ever does, how is this private information going to help anyone else? The University Covid dashboard provides ample statistics.  

Should the University concern itself with the accuracy of betting lines, because this might somehow have an indirect impact on their football revenue stream? (I really think that's a stretch.)

I also perceive that some are trying to nullify the right to privacy, because the right-to-know arguments are admittedly pretty weak. If it had proven viable, I would have been on-board with the anonymous use of medical data to track and prevent the spread of the virus.  But you lose me when it comes down to public disclosure of individual cases among students or anyone, except to the close contacts themselves.  As a fan, I'm super curious to know, but I claim no right to know.  The public's right to know does not outweigh the individual's right to privacy in this case.  

On a side note, I feel the same way about many aspects of the Internet - including someone's Google search results from events that allegedly might or might not have occurred 15 years ago.  I'm surprised that a lot of the old-timers on this board don't seem to care about this issue, despite having grown up in a different world (as I did, barely) where you could have been a complete f*ck-up at age 20 and nobody would be the wiser 15 years later when you're going for an important job.  (I'm digressing from Covid or athletic performance here, which don't carry the kind of stigma or cause the same negative first impression that certain stupid but ultimately harmless actions might carry, if they're recorded on websites and indexed by search engines for all eternity.)

Mr. Sagehen you completely miss my point on the betting lines. Full information will not harm the University's revenue stream. It will protect it from scandal where bettors looking for every edge will be canvassing for information on college campuses as to who is playing or not playing as the case may be.  Again this is the reason for the NFL has its injury reports. Stanford could simply be vaguer and just have a Thursday night report as to which players are available for Saturday's game. Instead we get guys like Coach Shaw who come from the football coach as a paranoid realm that use the information disclosure requirements to block most everything.