[Snorlax94]

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.

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 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.

[Snorlax94]

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.

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 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.