08-11-2020, 03:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-11-2020, 03:16 PM by BostonCard.)
[tweet]http://twitter.com/ConnorWedington/status/1293281314146115584[/tweet]
Stanford FB posts on cancellation of fall season
[tweet]http://twitter.com/ConnorWedington/status/1293281314146115584[/tweet]
The email from Bernard Muir:
The Pac-12 CEO Group decided today to postpone fall and winter sports until at least January 2021. Timing and other details surrounding competitions will be determined in consultation with the Pac-12’s Medical Advisory Committee and will be subject to campus, local, state, and federal guidelines.
The health and safety of our student-athletes, coaches, staff, and community has been and always will be our top priority. At this point, it has become apparent that competing this fall would introduce undue risk in terms of the health and safety of participants and the spread of the virus in the communities in which competitions were scheduled to take place. Beyond the widespread prevalence of COVID-19 across our country right now, there are also still many unknowns with respect to the potential long-term health implications of the virus for those who contract it, even for young people who may not experience severe symptoms in the short term.
Today’s decision is disappointing for many people, but none more so than our student-athletes, who have worked so hard for so many years to reach this point in their athletics pursuits. I remain hopeful that we will find a way to create an opportunity for them to compete safely in the winter or spring.
As I wrote to you at the end of July, we are faced with serious financial challenges ahead, and we expect our projected budget deficit to grow in light of the decision to postpone fall and winter sports. Nevertheless, we will continue to support our student-athletes in every way possible.
In that vein, I want to say thank you for converting your Season Ticket Membership payment to a credit for the 2021 season and for your annual support as a Buck/Cardinal Club donor. In the event that we are able to welcome fans back to our venues during the 2020-2021 academic year, Season Ticket Members who convert their Membership payment to a Buck/Cardinal Club gift or make a separate annual contribution to the Buck/Cardinal Club, like you, will receive priority access to tickets. Our staff will contact you via email with more updates when we have new information to share.
I am heartened knowing that you, and our incredible fan base, will help us weather this storm, and look forward to welcoming you back on The Farm when the time is right.
If you have any questions, please visit our online Ticketing Policies and FAQs, email athleticstickets@stanford.edu or call (800)-STANFORD.
Thank you again, and go Stanford!
Sincerely,
Bernard
Bernard M. Muir
The Jaquish & Kenninger
Director of Athletics
The Pac-12 CEO Group decided today to postpone fall and winter sports until at least January 2021. Timing and other details surrounding competitions will be determined in consultation with the Pac-12’s Medical Advisory Committee and will be subject to campus, local, state, and federal guidelines.
The health and safety of our student-athletes, coaches, staff, and community has been and always will be our top priority. At this point, it has become apparent that competing this fall would introduce undue risk in terms of the health and safety of participants and the spread of the virus in the communities in which competitions were scheduled to take place. Beyond the widespread prevalence of COVID-19 across our country right now, there are also still many unknowns with respect to the potential long-term health implications of the virus for those who contract it, even for young people who may not experience severe symptoms in the short term.
Today’s decision is disappointing for many people, but none more so than our student-athletes, who have worked so hard for so many years to reach this point in their athletics pursuits. I remain hopeful that we will find a way to create an opportunity for them to compete safely in the winter or spring.
As I wrote to you at the end of July, we are faced with serious financial challenges ahead, and we expect our projected budget deficit to grow in light of the decision to postpone fall and winter sports. Nevertheless, we will continue to support our student-athletes in every way possible.
In that vein, I want to say thank you for converting your Season Ticket Membership payment to a credit for the 2021 season and for your annual support as a Buck/Cardinal Club donor. In the event that we are able to welcome fans back to our venues during the 2020-2021 academic year, Season Ticket Members who convert their Membership payment to a Buck/Cardinal Club gift or make a separate annual contribution to the Buck/Cardinal Club, like you, will receive priority access to tickets. Our staff will contact you via email with more updates when we have new information to share.
I am heartened knowing that you, and our incredible fan base, will help us weather this storm, and look forward to welcoming you back on The Farm when the time is right.
If you have any questions, please visit our online Ticketing Policies and FAQs, email athleticstickets@stanford.edu or call (800)-STANFORD.
Thank you again, and go Stanford!
Sincerely,
Bernard
Bernard M. Muir
The Jaquish & Kenninger
Director of Athletics
The email from Bernard Muir:
The Pac-12 CEO Group decided today to postpone fall and winter sports until at least January 2021. Timing and other details surrounding competitions will be determined in consultation with the Pac-12’s Medical Advisory Committee and will be subject to campus, local, state, and federal guidelines.
The health and safety of our student-athletes, coaches, staff, and community has been and always will be our top priority. At this point, it has become apparent that competing this fall would introduce undue risk in terms of the health and safety of participants and the spread of the virus in the communities in which competitions were scheduled to take place. Beyond the widespread prevalence of COVID-19 across our country right now, there are also still many unknowns with respect to the potential long-term health implications of the virus for those who contract it, even for young people who may not experience severe symptoms in the short term.
Today’s decision is disappointing for many people, but none more so than our student-athletes, who have worked so hard for so many years to reach this point in their athletics pursuits. I remain hopeful that we will find a way to create an opportunity for them to compete safely in the winter or spring.
As I wrote to you at the end of July, we are faced with serious financial challenges ahead, and we expect our projected budget deficit to grow in light of the decision to postpone fall and winter sports. Nevertheless, we will continue to support our student-athletes in every way possible.
In that vein, I want to say thank you for converting your Season Ticket Membership payment to a credit for the 2021 season and for your annual support as a Buck/Cardinal Club donor. In the event that we are able to welcome fans back to our venues during the 2020-2021 academic year, Season Ticket Members who convert their Membership payment to a Buck/Cardinal Club gift or make a separate annual contribution to the Buck/Cardinal Club, like you, will receive priority access to tickets. Our staff will contact you via email with more updates when we have new information to share.
I am heartened knowing that you, and our incredible fan base, will help us weather this storm, and look forward to welcoming you back on The Farm when the time is right.
If you have any questions, please visit our online Ticketing Policies and FAQs, email athleticstickets@stanford.edu or call (800)-STANFORD.
Thank you again, and go Stanford!
Sincerely,
Bernard
Bernard M. Muir
The Jaquish & Kenninger
Director of Athletics
The Pac-12 CEO Group decided today to postpone fall and winter sports until at least January 2021. Timing and other details surrounding competitions will be determined in consultation with the Pac-12’s Medical Advisory Committee and will be subject to campus, local, state, and federal guidelines.
The health and safety of our student-athletes, coaches, staff, and community has been and always will be our top priority. At this point, it has become apparent that competing this fall would introduce undue risk in terms of the health and safety of participants and the spread of the virus in the communities in which competitions were scheduled to take place. Beyond the widespread prevalence of COVID-19 across our country right now, there are also still many unknowns with respect to the potential long-term health implications of the virus for those who contract it, even for young people who may not experience severe symptoms in the short term.
Today’s decision is disappointing for many people, but none more so than our student-athletes, who have worked so hard for so many years to reach this point in their athletics pursuits. I remain hopeful that we will find a way to create an opportunity for them to compete safely in the winter or spring.
As I wrote to you at the end of July, we are faced with serious financial challenges ahead, and we expect our projected budget deficit to grow in light of the decision to postpone fall and winter sports. Nevertheless, we will continue to support our student-athletes in every way possible.
In that vein, I want to say thank you for converting your Season Ticket Membership payment to a credit for the 2021 season and for your annual support as a Buck/Cardinal Club donor. In the event that we are able to welcome fans back to our venues during the 2020-2021 academic year, Season Ticket Members who convert their Membership payment to a Buck/Cardinal Club gift or make a separate annual contribution to the Buck/Cardinal Club, like you, will receive priority access to tickets. Our staff will contact you via email with more updates when we have new information to share.
I am heartened knowing that you, and our incredible fan base, will help us weather this storm, and look forward to welcoming you back on The Farm when the time is right.
If you have any questions, please visit our online Ticketing Policies and FAQs, email athleticstickets@stanford.edu or call (800)-STANFORD.
Thank you again, and go Stanford!
Sincerely,
Bernard
Bernard M. Muir
The Jaquish & Kenninger
Director of Athletics
08-11-2020, 03:35 PM
The letter from Bernard was somewhat customized depending on donor status and what you have or haven't decided to do with your season tickets.
Obviously, they were not surprised by this decision.
Obviously, they were not surprised by this decision.
08-11-2020, 04:06 PM
(08-11-2020, 03:35 PM)chrisk Wrote: The letter from Bernard was somewhat customized depending on donor status and what you have or haven't decided to do with your season tickets.If anyone in the Stanford AD was unprepared for this outcome I would submit they should be first in line when the AD starts trimming staff.
Obviously, they were not surprised by this decision.
IIWII
I sure hope the AD will work diligently to make sure the student-athletes get all of the athletic and academic resources they need to stay healthy and on schedule to graduate. I also hope they are offered a chance to consult with Stanford officials on their options including the real likelihood of a competitive season in the Spring for their sport.
The good news for Stanford students is the decision happened early enough that athletes can alter their schedule to increase their fall course load.
(08-11-2020, 03:35 PM)chrisk Wrote: The letter from Bernard was somewhat customized depending on donor status and what you have or haven't decided to do with your season tickets.If anyone in the Stanford AD was unprepared for this outcome I would submit they should be first in line when the AD starts trimming staff.
Obviously, they were not surprised by this decision.
IIWII
I sure hope the AD will work diligently to make sure the student-athletes get all of the athletic and academic resources they need to stay healthy and on schedule to graduate. I also hope they are offered a chance to consult with Stanford officials on their options including the real likelihood of a competitive season in the Spring for their sport.
The good news for Stanford students is the decision happened early enough that athletes can alter their schedule to increase their fall course load.
08-11-2020, 04:37 PM
(08-11-2020, 04:06 PM)Farm93 Wrote: I sure hope the AD will work diligently to make sure the student-athletes get all of the athletic and academic resources they need to stay healthy and on schedule to graduate. I also hope they are offered a chance to consult with Stanford officials on their options including the real likelihood of a competitive season in the Spring for their sport.
The good news for Stanford students is the decision happened early enough that athletes can alter their schedule to increase their fall course load.
What do you mean by that, especially the "stay healthy" part? Why should Stanford football players be treated any differently than the regular student body when it comes to health and safety, especially now that there is no revenue-generating football season?
Also, do the competitors need the "academic support" now that the time demands of their sport will be greatly reduced?
This dovetails with a post in another thread asking about what Saban meant when he said it's "safer" for his players to be balling in the program than not. I believe i heard that Saban meant it's safer for them to be on campus in program than back home (almost certainly true) AND safer than infection rate in general student population (which could also be true, but remember, the team hasn't been interacting much with "regular" students), given the players arrived first.
This opens up discussion on topics that were not discussed much re: player health and safety.
But fundamentally, I return to (i) if it's not safe to play ball, is it really "okay" to have college kids on campus . . . any campus? (I mean, doesn't the risk of spread have to be greater in college at large, than in football operation?), and (ii)and if it is, then what is the incremental risk of playing ball?
It's all about incremental risk/benefit and a TON of factors go into the risk/benefit analysis, including what is touched on by Farm93's post.
P.S. This is a horrible development for Stanford football under the current guy. This fall was best chance to try and right the ship. With that option out the window, the program will continue to take on water. Will be interesting to see how/if Stanford football recovers.
(08-11-2020, 04:06 PM)Farm93 Wrote: I sure hope the AD will work diligently to make sure the student-athletes get all of the athletic and academic resources they need to stay healthy and on schedule to graduate. I also hope they are offered a chance to consult with Stanford officials on their options including the real likelihood of a competitive season in the Spring for their sport.
The good news for Stanford students is the decision happened early enough that athletes can alter their schedule to increase their fall course load.
What do you mean by that, especially the "stay healthy" part? Why should Stanford football players be treated any differently than the regular student body when it comes to health and safety, especially now that there is no revenue-generating football season?
Also, do the competitors need the "academic support" now that the time demands of their sport will be greatly reduced?
This dovetails with a post in another thread asking about what Saban meant when he said it's "safer" for his players to be balling in the program than not. I believe i heard that Saban meant it's safer for them to be on campus in program than back home (almost certainly true) AND safer than infection rate in general student population (which could also be true, but remember, the team hasn't been interacting much with "regular" students), given the players arrived first.
This opens up discussion on topics that were not discussed much re: player health and safety.
But fundamentally, I return to (i) if it's not safe to play ball, is it really "okay" to have college kids on campus . . . any campus? (I mean, doesn't the risk of spread have to be greater in college at large, than in football operation?), and (ii)and if it is, then what is the incremental risk of playing ball?
It's all about incremental risk/benefit and a TON of factors go into the risk/benefit analysis, including what is touched on by Farm93's post.
P.S. This is a horrible development for Stanford football under the current guy. This fall was best chance to try and right the ship. With that option out the window, the program will continue to take on water. Will be interesting to see how/if Stanford football recovers.
08-11-2020, 04:59 PM
(08-11-2020, 04:37 PM)teejers1 Wrote: This dovetails with a post in another thread asking about what Saban meant when he said it's "safer" for his players to be balling in the program than not. I believe i heard that Saban meant it's safer for them to be on campus in program than back home (almost certainly true) AND safer than infection rate in general student population (which could also be true, but remember, the team hasn't been interacting much with "regular" students), given the players arrived first.
Dabo said pretty much the same thing. Much safer in the program than at home or in the general student population. It's their Disneyworld Bubble. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(08-11-2020, 04:37 PM)teejers1 Wrote: This dovetails with a post in another thread asking about what Saban meant when he said it's "safer" for his players to be balling in the program than not. I believe i heard that Saban meant it's safer for them to be on campus in program than back home (almost certainly true) AND safer than infection rate in general student population (which could also be true, but remember, the team hasn't been interacting much with "regular" students), given the players arrived first.
Dabo said pretty much the same thing. Much safer in the program than at home or in the general student population. It's their Disneyworld Bubble. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(08-11-2020, 04:37 PM)teejers1 Wrote: This opens up discussion on topics that were not discussed much re: player health and safety.It may be safe enough on campus to take classes virtually and access needed resources -- people may need access to world-class libraries, lab equipment, experiments, etc.
But fundamentally, I return to (i) if it's not safe to play ball, is it really "okay" to have college kids on campus . . . any campus? (I mean, doesn't the risk of spread have to be greater in college at large, than in football operation?), and (ii)and if it is, then what is the incremental risk of playing ball?
It's all about incremental risk/benefit and a TON of factors go into the risk/benefit analysis, including what is touched on by Farm93's post.
P.S. This is a horrible development for Stanford football under the current guy. This fall was best chance to try and right the ship. With that option out the window, the program will continue to take on water. Will be interesting to see how/if Stanford football recovers.
But football often requires close contact, it often requires breathing heavily without masks, and probably most significantly, it requires travel to hot spot states and contact with other teams which may be infected.
It is entirely possible that it may be safe enough for students to be on campus to conduct research and access labs, and even exercise by themselves, without being safe enough to play a season of football.
If people want football so badly, they should wear masks, close bars, and use curfews to close parties. Also, probably 250,000 people shouldn't gather for a motorcycle rally without wearing masks. Being irresponsible and ignoring science has consequences.
(08-11-2020, 04:37 PM)teejers1 Wrote: This opens up discussion on topics that were not discussed much re: player health and safety.It may be safe enough on campus to take classes virtually and access needed resources -- people may need access to world-class libraries, lab equipment, experiments, etc.
But fundamentally, I return to (i) if it's not safe to play ball, is it really "okay" to have college kids on campus . . . any campus? (I mean, doesn't the risk of spread have to be greater in college at large, than in football operation?), and (ii)and if it is, then what is the incremental risk of playing ball?
It's all about incremental risk/benefit and a TON of factors go into the risk/benefit analysis, including what is touched on by Farm93's post.
P.S. This is a horrible development for Stanford football under the current guy. This fall was best chance to try and right the ship. With that option out the window, the program will continue to take on water. Will be interesting to see how/if Stanford football recovers.
But football often requires close contact, it often requires breathing heavily without masks, and probably most significantly, it requires travel to hot spot states and contact with other teams which may be infected.
It is entirely possible that it may be safe enough for students to be on campus to conduct research and access labs, and even exercise by themselves, without being safe enough to play a season of football.
If people want football so badly, they should wear masks, close bars, and use curfews to close parties. Also, probably 250,000 people shouldn't gather for a motorcycle rally without wearing masks. Being irresponsible and ignoring science has consequences.
08-11-2020, 06:23 PM
(08-11-2020, 05:56 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:(08-11-2020, 04:37 PM)teejers1 Wrote: This opens up discussion on topics that were not discussed much re: player health and safety.It may be safe enough on campus to take classes virtually and access needed resources -- people may need access to world-class libraries, lab equipment, experiments, etc.
But fundamentally, I return to (i) if it's not safe to play ball, is it really "okay" to have college kids on campus . . . any campus? (I mean, doesn't the risk of spread have to be greater in college at large, than in football operation?), and (ii)and if it is, then what is the incremental risk of playing ball?
It's all about incremental risk/benefit and a TON of factors go into the risk/benefit analysis, including what is touched on by Farm93's post.
P.S. This is a horrible development for Stanford football under the current guy. This fall was best chance to try and right the ship. With that option out the window, the program will continue to take on water. Will be interesting to see how/if Stanford football recovers.
But football often requires close contact, it often requires breathing heavily without masks, and probably most significantly, it requires travel to hot spot states and contact with other teams which may be infected.
It is entirely possible that it may be safe enough for students to be on campus to conduct research and access labs, and even exercise by themselves, without being safe enough to play a season of football.
If people want football so badly, they should wear masks, close bars, and use curfews to close parties. Also, probably 250,000 people shouldn't gather for a motorcycle rally without wearing masks. Being irresponsible and ignoring science has consequences.
Perhaps they should forgo marching by the hundreds , shouting chants and screaming in the ace of police as well. “Being irresponsibke and ignoring science has consequences” for everyone.
(08-11-2020, 05:56 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:(08-11-2020, 04:37 PM)teejers1 Wrote: This opens up discussion on topics that were not discussed much re: player health and safety.It may be safe enough on campus to take classes virtually and access needed resources -- people may need access to world-class libraries, lab equipment, experiments, etc.
But fundamentally, I return to (i) if it's not safe to play ball, is it really "okay" to have college kids on campus . . . any campus? (I mean, doesn't the risk of spread have to be greater in college at large, than in football operation?), and (ii)and if it is, then what is the incremental risk of playing ball?
It's all about incremental risk/benefit and a TON of factors go into the risk/benefit analysis, including what is touched on by Farm93's post.
P.S. This is a horrible development for Stanford football under the current guy. This fall was best chance to try and right the ship. With that option out the window, the program will continue to take on water. Will be interesting to see how/if Stanford football recovers.
But football often requires close contact, it often requires breathing heavily without masks, and probably most significantly, it requires travel to hot spot states and contact with other teams which may be infected.
It is entirely possible that it may be safe enough for students to be on campus to conduct research and access labs, and even exercise by themselves, without being safe enough to play a season of football.
If people want football so badly, they should wear masks, close bars, and use curfews to close parties. Also, probably 250,000 people shouldn't gather for a motorcycle rally without wearing masks. Being irresponsible and ignoring science has consequences.
Perhaps they should forgo marching by the hundreds , shouting chants and screaming in the ace of police as well. “Being irresponsibke and ignoring science has consequences” for everyone.
08-11-2020, 06:48 PM
(08-11-2020, 04:59 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(08-11-2020, 04:37 PM)teejers1 Wrote: This dovetails with a post in another thread asking about what Saban meant when he said it's "safer" for his players to be balling in the program than not. I believe i heard that Saban meant it's safer for them to be on campus in program than back home (almost certainly true) AND safer than infection rate in general student population (which could also be true, but remember, the team hasn't been interacting much with "regular" students), given the players arrived first.
Dabo said pretty much the same thing. Much safer in the program than at home or in the general student population. It's their Disneyworld Bubble. . . .
Intrinsic to this comment is the idea that football players should not be trusted to be responsible and social distance and/or that the campus can not be made safe for students but that football players are more important to keep virus-free.
BC
(08-11-2020, 04:59 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(08-11-2020, 04:37 PM)teejers1 Wrote: This dovetails with a post in another thread asking about what Saban meant when he said it's "safer" for his players to be balling in the program than not. I believe i heard that Saban meant it's safer for them to be on campus in program than back home (almost certainly true) AND safer than infection rate in general student population (which could also be true, but remember, the team hasn't been interacting much with "regular" students), given the players arrived first.
Dabo said pretty much the same thing. Much safer in the program than at home or in the general student population. It's their Disneyworld Bubble. . . .
Intrinsic to this comment is the idea that football players should not be trusted to be responsible and social distance and/or that the campus can not be made safe for students but that football players are more important to keep virus-free.
BC
IG from HHeimuli:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CDxJAAbprJ_/..._copy_link
https://www.instagram.com/p/CDxJAAbprJ_/..._copy_link
Quote:Imma stay strapped, and take on life 1v1 #StayReady #bounceback
21h
IG from HHeimuli:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CDxJAAbprJ_/..._copy_link
https://www.instagram.com/p/CDxJAAbprJ_/..._copy_link
Quote:Imma stay strapped, and take on life 1v1 #StayReady #bounceback
21h
(08-11-2020, 04:59 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(08-11-2020, 04:37 PM)teejers1 Wrote: This dovetails with a post in another thread asking about what Saban meant when he said it's "safer" for his players to be balling in the program than not. I believe i heard that Saban meant it's safer for them to be on campus in program than back home (almost certainly true) AND safer than infection rate in general student population (which could also be true, but remember, the team hasn't been interacting much with "regular" students), given the players arrived first.
Dabo said pretty much the same thing. Much safer in the program than at home or in the general student population. It's their Disneyworld Bubble. . . .
Dabo is full of it. Half the team has gotten Covid 19. If even one of those players has symptoms of autoimmune disease in the next few months it will come back to haunt him.
(08-11-2020, 04:59 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(08-11-2020, 04:37 PM)teejers1 Wrote: This dovetails with a post in another thread asking about what Saban meant when he said it's "safer" for his players to be balling in the program than not. I believe i heard that Saban meant it's safer for them to be on campus in program than back home (almost certainly true) AND safer than infection rate in general student population (which could also be true, but remember, the team hasn't been interacting much with "regular" students), given the players arrived first.
Dabo said pretty much the same thing. Much safer in the program than at home or in the general student population. It's their Disneyworld Bubble. . . .
Dabo is full of it. Half the team has gotten Covid 19. If even one of those players has symptoms of autoimmune disease in the next few months it will come back to haunt him.
08-12-2020, 06:09 PM
Our coaches told us over and over to stay out of TJ, especially the Blue Fox. It was like Mecca when you are 19 years old.
08-12-2020, 08:43 PM
(08-12-2020, 06:06 PM)akiddoc Wrote:(08-11-2020, 04:59 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(08-11-2020, 04:37 PM)teejers1 Wrote: This dovetails with a post in another thread asking about what Saban meant when he said it's "safer" for his players to be balling in the program than not. I believe i heard that Saban meant it's safer for them to be on campus in program than back home (almost certainly true) AND safer than infection rate in general student population (which could also be true, but remember, the team hasn't been interacting much with "regular" students), given the players arrived first.
Dabo said pretty much the same thing. Much safer in the program than at home or in the general student population. It's their Disneyworld Bubble. . . .
Dabo is full of it. Half the team has gotten Covid 19. If even one of those players has symptoms of autoimmune disease in the next few months it will come back to haunt him.
As a medical doctor, you fundamentally care about people’s health, and it’s a good thing you can’t relate to Dabo or Saban.
It seems to me that the job of being a big-time football coach is largely incompatible with caring about people’s health. I’m not saying coaches never care about players as people, but they can’t worry too much about their health, or else they’d need to choose another line of work. I respect coaches trying to make the game safer, like Coach Shaw. And I respect the point of view that football is net-positive for most of these kids.
Covid is certainly different and worse than CTE and the usual orthopedic risks of football, in that playing the game can affect the whole community, even those not playing. And I understand that we’re not quite clear on the long term risks of Covid (although we could say the same about CTE.) But I’m not convinced that Covid is any worse for the players themselves than the many chronic knee, back, cognitive and mental health problems that football causes. There’s no easy way to compare, but I’m guessing these traditional risks outweigh any risk from Covid to the players themselves.
Lastly, the fact that half of his own team has already been through and recovered from Covid probably makes Dabo feel better, not worse. He probably feels like it’s less likely to affect them now, so they might as well let the boys play for another “national” championship!
(I happen to disagree.)
(08-12-2020, 06:06 PM)akiddoc Wrote:(08-11-2020, 04:59 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(08-11-2020, 04:37 PM)teejers1 Wrote: This dovetails with a post in another thread asking about what Saban meant when he said it's "safer" for his players to be balling in the program than not. I believe i heard that Saban meant it's safer for them to be on campus in program than back home (almost certainly true) AND safer than infection rate in general student population (which could also be true, but remember, the team hasn't been interacting much with "regular" students), given the players arrived first.
Dabo said pretty much the same thing. Much safer in the program than at home or in the general student population. It's their Disneyworld Bubble. . . .
Dabo is full of it. Half the team has gotten Covid 19. If even one of those players has symptoms of autoimmune disease in the next few months it will come back to haunt him.
As a medical doctor, you fundamentally care about people’s health, and it’s a good thing you can’t relate to Dabo or Saban.
It seems to me that the job of being a big-time football coach is largely incompatible with caring about people’s health. I’m not saying coaches never care about players as people, but they can’t worry too much about their health, or else they’d need to choose another line of work. I respect coaches trying to make the game safer, like Coach Shaw. And I respect the point of view that football is net-positive for most of these kids.
Covid is certainly different and worse than CTE and the usual orthopedic risks of football, in that playing the game can affect the whole community, even those not playing. And I understand that we’re not quite clear on the long term risks of Covid (although we could say the same about CTE.) But I’m not convinced that Covid is any worse for the players themselves than the many chronic knee, back, cognitive and mental health problems that football causes. There’s no easy way to compare, but I’m guessing these traditional risks outweigh any risk from Covid to the players themselves.
Lastly, the fact that half of his own team has already been through and recovered from Covid probably makes Dabo feel better, not worse. He probably feels like it’s less likely to affect them now, so they might as well let the boys play for another “national” championship!
(I happen to disagree.)
08-12-2020, 08:58 PM
(08-12-2020, 08:43 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote:(08-12-2020, 06:06 PM)akiddoc Wrote:(08-11-2020, 04:59 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(08-11-2020, 04:37 PM)teejers1 Wrote: This dovetails with a post in another thread asking about what Saban meant when he said it's "safer" for his players to be balling in the program than not. I believe i heard that Saban meant it's safer for them to be on campus in program than back home (almost certainly true) AND safer than infection rate in general student population (which could also be true, but remember, the team hasn't been interacting much with "regular" students), given the players arrived first.
Dabo said pretty much the same thing. Much safer in the program than at home or in the general student population. It's their Disneyworld Bubble. . . .
Dabo is full of it. Half the team has gotten Covid 19. If even one of those players has symptoms of autoimmune disease in the next few months it will come back to haunt him.
As a medical doctor, you fundamentally care about people’s health, and it’s a good thing you can’t relate to Dabo or Saban.
It seems to me that the job of being a big-time football coach is largely incompatible with caring about people’s health. I’m not saying coaches never care about players as people, but they can’t worry too much about their health, or else they’d need to choose another line of work. I respect coaches trying to make the game safer, like Coach Shaw. And I respect the point of view that football is net-positive for most of these kids.
Covid is certainly different and worse than CTE and the usual orthopedic risks of football, in that playing the game can affect the whole community, even those not playing. And I understand that we’re not quite clear on the long term risks of Covid (although we could say the same about CTE.) But I’m not convinced that Covid is any worse for the players themselves than the many chronic knee, back, cognitive and mental health problems that football causes. There’s no easy way to compare, but I’m guessing these traditional risks outweigh any risk from Covid to the players themselves.
Lastly, the fact that half of his own team has already been through and recovered from Covid probably makes Dabo feel better, not worse. He probably feels like it’s less likely to affect them now, so they might as well let the boys play for another “national” championship!
(I happen to disagree.)
while agreeing with crux of akiddoc's post, didn't most of the Clemson team show up on campus with the virus? I thought the widespread positive results came on first test, when team came to campus from home fronts. But perhaps that is my misapprehension.
(08-12-2020, 08:43 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote:(08-12-2020, 06:06 PM)akiddoc Wrote:(08-11-2020, 04:59 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(08-11-2020, 04:37 PM)teejers1 Wrote: This dovetails with a post in another thread asking about what Saban meant when he said it's "safer" for his players to be balling in the program than not. I believe i heard that Saban meant it's safer for them to be on campus in program than back home (almost certainly true) AND safer than infection rate in general student population (which could also be true, but remember, the team hasn't been interacting much with "regular" students), given the players arrived first.
Dabo said pretty much the same thing. Much safer in the program than at home or in the general student population. It's their Disneyworld Bubble. . . .
Dabo is full of it. Half the team has gotten Covid 19. If even one of those players has symptoms of autoimmune disease in the next few months it will come back to haunt him.
As a medical doctor, you fundamentally care about people’s health, and it’s a good thing you can’t relate to Dabo or Saban.
It seems to me that the job of being a big-time football coach is largely incompatible with caring about people’s health. I’m not saying coaches never care about players as people, but they can’t worry too much about their health, or else they’d need to choose another line of work. I respect coaches trying to make the game safer, like Coach Shaw. And I respect the point of view that football is net-positive for most of these kids.
Covid is certainly different and worse than CTE and the usual orthopedic risks of football, in that playing the game can affect the whole community, even those not playing. And I understand that we’re not quite clear on the long term risks of Covid (although we could say the same about CTE.) But I’m not convinced that Covid is any worse for the players themselves than the many chronic knee, back, cognitive and mental health problems that football causes. There’s no easy way to compare, but I’m guessing these traditional risks outweigh any risk from Covid to the players themselves.
Lastly, the fact that half of his own team has already been through and recovered from Covid probably makes Dabo feel better, not worse. He probably feels like it’s less likely to affect them now, so they might as well let the boys play for another “national” championship!
(I happen to disagree.)
while agreeing with crux of akiddoc's post, didn't most of the Clemson team show up on campus with the virus? I thought the widespread positive results came on first test, when team came to campus from home fronts. But perhaps that is my misapprehension.
08-16-2020, 10:58 AM
[tweet]https://twitter.com/CoachDavidShaw/status/1294665580138475521[/tweet]
08-17-2020, 08:14 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-17-2020, 08:15 AM by Griffins78.)
Bruce Feldman quotes Pac12 coaches and officials on the medical reasons the Pac12 cancelled Football. More details than I’ve seen previously.
https://theathletic.com/1993267/2020/08/...l-in-2020/
https://theathletic.com/1993267/2020/08/...l-in-2020/
Quote:A Powerpoint presentation by one of the doctors left many of them speechless.
Quote:“Whenever you start mentioning the heart, that is a whole different deal,” the coach said. “That got everybody’s attention. When you hear that even people who are asymptomatic can get heart issues, that’s what I think really scared people.
(This post was last modified: 08-17-2020, 08:15 AM by Griffins78.)
Bruce Feldman quotes Pac12 coaches and officials on the medical reasons the Pac12 cancelled Football. More details than I’ve seen previously.
https://theathletic.com/1993267/2020/08/...l-in-2020/
https://theathletic.com/1993267/2020/08/...l-in-2020/
Quote:A Powerpoint presentation by one of the doctors left many of them speechless.
Quote:“Whenever you start mentioning the heart, that is a whole different deal,” the coach said. “That got everybody’s attention. When you hear that even people who are asymptomatic can get heart issues, that’s what I think really scared people.
08-17-2020, 10:18 AM
I hadn't seen this bit of news:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ml...564760002/
Red Sox pitcher Eduardo Rodriguez is out the entire season with COVID-19 related myocarditis. I think he's the first athlete that I know of who has been affected to that extent. I would be very curious to find out what proportion of players who get COVID-19 have a case as serious as Rodriguez.
But yeah, as long as the risk of myocarditis remains poorly characterized, I agree that the better part of valor is to postpone this season.
BC
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ml...564760002/
Red Sox pitcher Eduardo Rodriguez is out the entire season with COVID-19 related myocarditis. I think he's the first athlete that I know of who has been affected to that extent. I would be very curious to find out what proportion of players who get COVID-19 have a case as serious as Rodriguez.
But yeah, as long as the risk of myocarditis remains poorly characterized, I agree that the better part of valor is to postpone this season.
BC
I hadn't seen this bit of news:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ml...564760002/
Red Sox pitcher Eduardo Rodriguez is out the entire season with COVID-19 related myocarditis. I think he's the first athlete that I know of who has been affected to that extent. I would be very curious to find out what proportion of players who get COVID-19 have a case as serious as Rodriguez.
But yeah, as long as the risk of myocarditis remains poorly characterized, I agree that the better part of valor is to postpone this season.
BC
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ml...564760002/
Red Sox pitcher Eduardo Rodriguez is out the entire season with COVID-19 related myocarditis. I think he's the first athlete that I know of who has been affected to that extent. I would be very curious to find out what proportion of players who get COVID-19 have a case as serious as Rodriguez.
But yeah, as long as the risk of myocarditis remains poorly characterized, I agree that the better part of valor is to postpone this season.
BC
08-17-2020, 05:08 PM
(08-11-2020, 05:56 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:(08-11-2020, 04:37 PM)teejers1 Wrote: This opens up discussion on topics that were not discussed much re: player health and safety.It may be safe enough on campus to take classes virtually and access needed resources -- people may need access to world-class libraries, lab equipment, experiments, etc.
But fundamentally, I return to (i) if it's not safe to play ball, is it really "okay" to have college kids on campus . . . any campus? (I mean, doesn't the risk of spread have to be greater in college at large, than in football operation?), and (ii)and if it is, then what is the incremental risk of playing ball?
It's all about incremental risk/benefit and a TON of factors go into the risk/benefit analysis, including what is touched on by Farm93's post.
P.S. This is a horrible development for Stanford football under the current guy. This fall was best chance to try and right the ship. With that option out the window, the program will continue to take on water. Will be interesting to see how/if Stanford football recovers.
But football often requires close contact, it often requires breathing heavily without masks, and probably most significantly, it requires travel to hot spot states and contact with other teams which may be infected.
It is entirely possible that it may be safe enough for students to be on campus to conduct research and access labs, and even exercise by themselves, without being safe enough to play a season of football.
If people want football so badly, they should wear masks, close bars, and use curfews to close parties. Also, probably 250,000 people shouldn't gather for a motorcycle rally without wearing masks. Being irresponsible and ignoring science has consequences.
“Conduct research and access labs, and even exercise by themselves”. Not exactly how I rememBer life on campus but I’m sure that is he approach do some. I just didn’t run i the correct circles. Not sure how many undergrads do so today but then I’m one heck of a long way from being an undergrad
(08-11-2020, 05:56 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:(08-11-2020, 04:37 PM)teejers1 Wrote: This opens up discussion on topics that were not discussed much re: player health and safety.It may be safe enough on campus to take classes virtually and access needed resources -- people may need access to world-class libraries, lab equipment, experiments, etc.
But fundamentally, I return to (i) if it's not safe to play ball, is it really "okay" to have college kids on campus . . . any campus? (I mean, doesn't the risk of spread have to be greater in college at large, than in football operation?), and (ii)and if it is, then what is the incremental risk of playing ball?
It's all about incremental risk/benefit and a TON of factors go into the risk/benefit analysis, including what is touched on by Farm93's post.
P.S. This is a horrible development for Stanford football under the current guy. This fall was best chance to try and right the ship. With that option out the window, the program will continue to take on water. Will be interesting to see how/if Stanford football recovers.
But football often requires close contact, it often requires breathing heavily without masks, and probably most significantly, it requires travel to hot spot states and contact with other teams which may be infected.
It is entirely possible that it may be safe enough for students to be on campus to conduct research and access labs, and even exercise by themselves, without being safe enough to play a season of football.
If people want football so badly, they should wear masks, close bars, and use curfews to close parties. Also, probably 250,000 people shouldn't gather for a motorcycle rally without wearing masks. Being irresponsible and ignoring science has consequences.
“Conduct research and access labs, and even exercise by themselves”. Not exactly how I rememBer life on campus but I’m sure that is he approach do some. I just didn’t run i the correct circles. Not sure how many undergrads do so today but then I’m one heck of a long way from being an undergrad
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »