07-23-2020, 01:23 PM
(07-22-2020, 10:53 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(07-21-2020, 03:46 PM)Phogge Wrote: Feels like the college football establishment is waiting for a miracle. Ain't happening for a bit given the current trend up for Covid infections. The kids are caught in the middle but having an empty campus with 100 football players doing their thing is very bad policy. This is education for Pete's sake. Should be axiomatic, no students then no activities.
Why?
It's safer for the participants, who undoubtedly want to play. And the school makes some money, which saves some jobs.
Hell, even the students distance learning may want to have a team to watch and root for on TV.
Why should the policy be: we have to punish the most number of people positble? Does "misery loves company" rule the policy day now?
BTW, soccer should play in the fall. No reason not to. See PL, Bundesliga, etc. It's proven to be a relatively safe activity (as far as I can tell from following the sport).
I don't know that the issue is as much the safety of the activity--I agree that soccer is relatively safe as long as certain precautions are met, like pre-match testing, spacing out the subs on the bench, etc. I think the reticence for college soccer is due to other, related factors, like positivity rates in the visitor's and guest's locales, how long it takes to get back a test result, safety of air travel, safety of accommodations, age/health of the coaching staffs and the folks with whom they live, etc. PL and Bundesliga can afford to take steps that US college soccer teams cannot afford and/or they exist in comparatively safer environments.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)