[teejers1]

I don’t think they should play.  Said that from day one.  They aren’t getting paid.  But if I stop and truly think about it, what is the greater risk to college  players, Covid or CTE.  I suspect it’s the latter. In fact, I doubt it's particularly a close issue.  So why do we allow the sport in the first place.  Or put another way - why the outrage over the rather minute long term risk from Covid complications compared to the relative quiet response to CTE.  Which is a considerably higher risk.  The answer is politics.

I agree with the statement that it’s inconsistent to be concerned about Covid and not CTE.  I’m personally concerned about both, but there are some important differences between them. 

Covid is transmissible to the community, while CTE is not. We know Covid can spread extremely rapidly among teammates that are training or playing together, and college teams can’t test frequently enough to catch all of these infections early.  As a result, players can pass it to the community.  

In addition, Covid, we hope, is temporary and solvable. It doesn’t require a permanent killing of the sport, which would be a much bigger trade-off than one season. 

That said, football injuries are likely much riskier than Covid to the athletes themselves. It’s even strange to worry about CTE and not chronic orthopedic issues, which have a more tangible impact on so many football players - but where does it all end?! 

I’m of the opinion that football does more good than bad, but not during a pandemic.  And I think it’s way different for the NFL vs. CFB.

Again, what is the difference in infection and transition transmission from college students attending school and that same age group that is not.  Until we know that answer there is no way to accurately assess the risk of going back to school.

The transmission rate has to be higher on campus than at home . . . unless young people are congregating in groups (and living in close proximity to each other) at home.  That's just common sense . . . isn't it?
The bigger question is . . . does 500 new cases since arrival represent an unacceptable health risk in Tuscaloosa?  If every single one of them recovers in short order w/o needing to usurp hospital resources, then the answer is no.  The chances of that is infinitesimal, so there is definitely community risk.  It's much harder to measure that risk and then determine if it is "acceptable" or "unacceptable."

[teejers1]

I don’t think they should play.  Said that from day one.  They aren’t getting paid.  But if I stop and truly think about it, what is the greater risk to college  players, Covid or CTE.  I suspect it’s the latter. In fact, I doubt it's particularly a close issue.  So why do we allow the sport in the first place.  Or put another way - why the outrage over the rather minute long term risk from Covid complications compared to the relative quiet response to CTE.  Which is a considerably higher risk.  The answer is politics.

I agree with the statement that it’s inconsistent to be concerned about Covid and not CTE.  I’m personally concerned about both, but there are some important differences between them. 

Covid is transmissible to the community, while CTE is not. We know Covid can spread extremely rapidly among teammates that are training or playing together, and college teams can’t test frequently enough to catch all of these infections early.  As a result, players can pass it to the community.  

In addition, Covid, we hope, is temporary and solvable. It doesn’t require a permanent killing of the sport, which would be a much bigger trade-off than one season. 

That said, football injuries are likely much riskier than Covid to the athletes themselves. It’s even strange to worry about CTE and not chronic orthopedic issues, which have a more tangible impact on so many football players - but where does it all end?! 

I’m of the opinion that football does more good than bad, but not during a pandemic.  And I think it’s way different for the NFL vs. CFB.

Again, what is the difference in infection and transition transmission from college students attending school and that same age group that is not.  Until we know that answer there is no way to accurately assess the risk of going back to school.

The transmission rate has to be higher on campus than at home . . . unless young people are congregating in groups (and living in close proximity to each other) at home.  That's just common sense . . . isn't it?
The bigger question is . . . does 500 new cases since arrival represent an unacceptable health risk in Tuscaloosa?  If every single one of them recovers in short order w/o needing to usurp hospital resources, then the answer is no.  The chances of that is infinitesimal, so there is definitely community risk.  It's much harder to measure that risk and then determine if it is "acceptable" or "unacceptable."