College kids are 18-22. It’s not their egos. They are kids. Why they had this “53 threshold“ is a little bit beyond me. If they agreed to play the season, and they did, then you play with what you got. It’s no different than having a bunch of injuries. So WSU would’ve been shorthanded. Big deal.
Is there any proof that college football is contributing to the spread? Generally, I mean. Frankly I’m not even sure it’s adding to the spread amongst the kids – who may have been more likely to get it anyway given they’re going to go out and do stuff.
(11-20-2020, 05:50 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(11-20-2020, 05:20 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(11-20-2020, 04:38 PM)teejers1 Wrote: [BTW, I imagine kids in minor sports -not just football - and their families really want the games to go on, for obvious reasons].
It's like you all want to be Dean Wormer: "No more fun of any kind!" (for anyone).
And not just college. High School and Club too. Kids want to compete.
And I want to have Thanksgiving with my parents, but to do so would be irresponsible. Hell, I've been hoping to have a chance to go back to the office, but alas that's not happening until next spring at the earliest.
There's a limited amount of things "we" can do while keeping the virus under control (and by under control, I mean, R < 1). Unfortunately, R is currently > 1, so we are already doing too many activities, so caseloads are high and rising. So, we can chose to curtail activities now or wait until cases start to overwhelm hospitals, at which point more drastic measures will be needed. The whole point is to try to avoid a second lockdown.
BC
Is there any proof that college football is contributing to the spread? Generally, I mean. Frankly I’m not even sure it’s adding to the spread amongst the kids – who may have been more likely to get it anyway given they’re going to go out and do stuff.