[teejers1]

We can only conclude that shutdown of football has little to do with case numbers. . . 

Can you conclude whether the shutdown of football has little (or anything) to do with hospital capacity numbers?
The point is, there is some calculus being done - and I doubt things would be "green lighted" if there was a belief that playing would result in mass deaths like we saw if NY.

I swear, if someone just happened on this site and read this thread, a reasonable conclusion to draw from tone of posts is that folks here are HOPING for mass infection and serious illness (I won't go so far as to include death) for programs that are opting to try and play football this fall.  I can't figure out if that's bitterness because the Pac is not playing (doubtful) or some moral insistence that "we're right and caring; and those guys are immoral and uncaring" (much more likely).  And in all events, the certainty with which the latter belief is held is remarkable.  How are you so certain that your position is "the right" one?

A few things.  First, there is still plenty of time for schools to change their mind.  [Try to contain your glee if/when that happens].  Second, it's possible that some schools may muddle through their season with positive tests here and there; a non-competitive game here or there; a forfeit here and there; or even a truncated season.  I won't demean or condemn them for these efforts and outcomes.  There is a policy calculus being made that this is "important enough" to try and do - and that no doubt means the $$ on line are significant enough for the university's overall health that they want/need to try it.  I am not (and will not) be as judgmental as the quick triggers in these parts.  Remember: kids aren't being forced to play (indeed, many that want to play are being prohibited from doing so); kids are not being put in close quarters indoors and asked to slobber all over each other; and the testing and safety protocols are likely far superior to what they would be receiving in a "no play" world.

Is there increased risk?  Sure there is.  But the decision to "re-open" this activity is no different in theory from other re-opening decisions, where it's a risk-benefit calculus.

I don't know if I agree or disagree with the decision to play (if I were the czar, I'd probably lean latter); however, I hope these guys get through it with minimal negative health impacts.

P.S.  Isn't Clemson in better shape to play safely, given their widespread early outbreak?  I know some here are pushing re-infection uncertainty (and anecdotally, there is reason for some concern).  Still, if you had a choice of going into the season with 80& of your team having already had and recovered from Covid (versus, say, Stanford's 12%), wouldn't you prefer the former?

[teejers1]

We can only conclude that shutdown of football has little to do with case numbers. . . 

Can you conclude whether the shutdown of football has little (or anything) to do with hospital capacity numbers?
The point is, there is some calculus being done - and I doubt things would be "green lighted" if there was a belief that playing would result in mass deaths like we saw if NY.

I swear, if someone just happened on this site and read this thread, a reasonable conclusion to draw from tone of posts is that folks here are HOPING for mass infection and serious illness (I won't go so far as to include death) for programs that are opting to try and play football this fall.  I can't figure out if that's bitterness because the Pac is not playing (doubtful) or some moral insistence that "we're right and caring; and those guys are immoral and uncaring" (much more likely).  And in all events, the certainty with which the latter belief is held is remarkable.  How are you so certain that your position is "the right" one?

A few things.  First, there is still plenty of time for schools to change their mind.  [Try to contain your glee if/when that happens].  Second, it's possible that some schools may muddle through their season with positive tests here and there; a non-competitive game here or there; a forfeit here and there; or even a truncated season.  I won't demean or condemn them for these efforts and outcomes.  There is a policy calculus being made that this is "important enough" to try and do - and that no doubt means the $$ on line are significant enough for the university's overall health that they want/need to try it.  I am not (and will not) be as judgmental as the quick triggers in these parts.  Remember: kids aren't being forced to play (indeed, many that want to play are being prohibited from doing so); kids are not being put in close quarters indoors and asked to slobber all over each other; and the testing and safety protocols are likely far superior to what they would be receiving in a "no play" world.

Is there increased risk?  Sure there is.  But the decision to "re-open" this activity is no different in theory from other re-opening decisions, where it's a risk-benefit calculus.

I don't know if I agree or disagree with the decision to play (if I were the czar, I'd probably lean latter); however, I hope these guys get through it with minimal negative health impacts.

P.S.  Isn't Clemson in better shape to play safely, given their widespread early outbreak?  I know some here are pushing re-infection uncertainty (and anecdotally, there is reason for some concern).  Still, if you had a choice of going into the season with 80& of your team having already had and recovered from Covid (versus, say, Stanford's 12%), wouldn't you prefer the former?