[donkey687]

But I think that what makes football "safe enough" is the extraordinary expenditure of resources to test players.  

I totally understand what you mean - the priorities are messed up.  But this economic argument strikes me as faulty.  I’m pretty sure the “extraordinary expenditure” for daily tests to enable football has an extremely high return on investment vs. the alternative of not playing.  And the return is much more positive than other activities that could be restarted with some investment.

Here are my assumptions:
1) If Stanford plays, it will receive its share of TV and CFP/bowl revenue. 
2) If Stanford chooses not to play in spite of CA and SCC approval, it will miss out on its share of of the revenue pool.
3) Either way, Stanford will continue to bear many "sticky" costs of the program such as David Shaw's comp.  (And no, teejers, I don't think they'll be furloughing David Shaw, so don't get too excited.) 

In theory, Stanford could take the marginal profits from choosing to play football, or the reduction in marginal losses, and plow all that extra money into buying more tests for all students, if this were the University's real priority.

Stanford is too risk averse to bring all the students back. Money for tests or having access to lots of tests was not an issue.  Covid risk of thousands of students on campus is much greater than a few hundred that is why having some athletes and lab workers and foreign students on campus is manageable risk.  I don't view it as a double standard as you are comparing activities of different risk profiles. The reason not to play football is out of principle which is a form of elitism in my book.  Stanford could rely on principle and refuse to play football this year but it wouldn't be due to unmanageable risk. It is because they feel they are holier than thou and want to stand above everyone else. I think there would be long term damage to the football program and it would be a disservice to the players and coaches who want to play and would be the only major conference team denied the ability to play. Hopefully, pragmatism can win out.

[donkey687]

But I think that what makes football "safe enough" is the extraordinary expenditure of resources to test players.  

I totally understand what you mean - the priorities are messed up.  But this economic argument strikes me as faulty.  I’m pretty sure the “extraordinary expenditure” for daily tests to enable football has an extremely high return on investment vs. the alternative of not playing.  And the return is much more positive than other activities that could be restarted with some investment.

Here are my assumptions:
1) If Stanford plays, it will receive its share of TV and CFP/bowl revenue. 
2) If Stanford chooses not to play in spite of CA and SCC approval, it will miss out on its share of of the revenue pool.
3) Either way, Stanford will continue to bear many "sticky" costs of the program such as David Shaw's comp.  (And no, teejers, I don't think they'll be furloughing David Shaw, so don't get too excited.) 

In theory, Stanford could take the marginal profits from choosing to play football, or the reduction in marginal losses, and plow all that extra money into buying more tests for all students, if this were the University's real priority.

Stanford is too risk averse to bring all the students back. Money for tests or having access to lots of tests was not an issue.  Covid risk of thousands of students on campus is much greater than a few hundred that is why having some athletes and lab workers and foreign students on campus is manageable risk.  I don't view it as a double standard as you are comparing activities of different risk profiles. The reason not to play football is out of principle which is a form of elitism in my book.  Stanford could rely on principle and refuse to play football this year but it wouldn't be due to unmanageable risk. It is because they feel they are holier than thou and want to stand above everyone else. I think there would be long term damage to the football program and it would be a disservice to the players and coaches who want to play and would be the only major conference team denied the ability to play. Hopefully, pragmatism can win out.