[Farm93]

It's a matter of numbers.  Let's say that the actual local infection rate is 1 in 10,000.  The chances that at least one person in the stands is infected (even if attendance is sparse, say 25,000) is 81%.  The chance that at least one player is infected (if there are 85 on each team) is 2% and probably less because at least for players, the assumption of independence is not valid (that is, if one player is infected, probably more than one are, so it is not really 130 independent draws).

Secondly, there is the fact that mortality among college aged students is going to be very low.  Mortality among fans is going to be higher, potentially much higher depending on the fans' demographics.

I'm not arguing that football should restart; I think we need to see what the data shows.

BC

BC - You are not accounting for a few key elements 

1 - Visiting team players and coaches - They often travel from hundreds of miles away, potentially with a different infection rate.
2 - Visiting team fans - They often come from several different areas reaching the venue by planes, trains, buses and cars.  
3 - Stadium support staff - They would need to risk their health.   This one is uniquely tricky since it is very hard to believe a school could provide appropriate PPE and social distancing.
4 - The football players may all be young, but their support staff (coaches, trainers, managers, administrators) are generally much older. 

Ultimately it will come down to a risk assessment.  Money for AD budgets vs health of the participants and employees.

If college football had the revenue of college soccer I would trust FBS colleges and universities to prioritize the health of their students, but I am not so sure health of the students will win the day here if schools are allowed to assess the risks and rewards on their own.

If any FBS conference suspends soccer, cross country, volleyball, field hockey and water polo but insists that football move forward the true motivation will be clear to all.

[Farm93]

It's a matter of numbers.  Let's say that the actual local infection rate is 1 in 10,000.  The chances that at least one person in the stands is infected (even if attendance is sparse, say 25,000) is 81%.  The chance that at least one player is infected (if there are 85 on each team) is 2% and probably less because at least for players, the assumption of independence is not valid (that is, if one player is infected, probably more than one are, so it is not really 130 independent draws).

Secondly, there is the fact that mortality among college aged students is going to be very low.  Mortality among fans is going to be higher, potentially much higher depending on the fans' demographics.

I'm not arguing that football should restart; I think we need to see what the data shows.

BC

BC - You are not accounting for a few key elements 

1 - Visiting team players and coaches - They often travel from hundreds of miles away, potentially with a different infection rate.
2 - Visiting team fans - They often come from several different areas reaching the venue by planes, trains, buses and cars.  
3 - Stadium support staff - They would need to risk their health.   This one is uniquely tricky since it is very hard to believe a school could provide appropriate PPE and social distancing.
4 - The football players may all be young, but their support staff (coaches, trainers, managers, administrators) are generally much older. 

Ultimately it will come down to a risk assessment.  Money for AD budgets vs health of the participants and employees.

If college football had the revenue of college soccer I would trust FBS colleges and universities to prioritize the health of their students, but I am not so sure health of the students will win the day here if schools are allowed to assess the risks and rewards on their own.

If any FBS conference suspends soccer, cross country, volleyball, field hockey and water polo but insists that football move forward the true motivation will be clear to all.