[teejers1]

Hope for those players it all works out. 
At least the football players are doing this for glory, fame and school TV revenue.
The women's soccer and women's volleyball teams will be taking on the risk for....Title IX compliance.

Can we at least acknowledge that the student-athletes want to play because (a) they love the game, and (b) they love to compete?  I mean, to suggest the women's soccer and VB teams are taking on the risk of Covid for Title IX compliance is just not true (or fair to the kids).  In fact, has anyone mentioned the petition started by Justin Fields (tOSU QB to play), or the parents' anger over the decision to not compete?  We can say they're letting emotion trump common sense, but regardless, let's not attempt to sweep under the rug the reality that almost all of these college-aged kids want to play and want to compete for all the right reasons.

[teejers1]

Hope for those players it all works out. 
At least the football players are doing this for glory, fame and school TV revenue.
The women's soccer and women's volleyball teams will be taking on the risk for....Title IX compliance.

Can we at least acknowledge that the student-athletes want to play because (a) they love the game, and (b) they love to compete?  I mean, to suggest the women's soccer and VB teams are taking on the risk of Covid for Title IX compliance is just not true (or fair to the kids).  In fact, has anyone mentioned the petition started by Justin Fields (tOSU QB to play), or the parents' anger over the decision to not compete?  We can say they're letting emotion trump common sense, but regardless, let's not attempt to sweep under the rug the reality that almost all of these college-aged kids want to play and want to compete for all the right reasons.

[magnus]

Georgia State QB out for the year due to a heart condition after getting Covid.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/wingoz/status/1296486281405501440?s=20[/tweet]

Props to GSU that they had protocols in place to catch this.

[magnus]

Georgia State QB out for the year due to a heart condition after getting Covid.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/wingoz/status/1296486281405501440?s=20[/tweet]

Props to GSU that they had protocols in place to catch this.

[JustAnotherFan]

Georgia State QB out for the year due to a heart condition after getting Covid.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/wingoz/status/1296486281405501440?s=20[/tweet]

Props to GSU that they had protocols in place to catch this.

So what's the over/under on the number of athletes who need to do the same before they finally pull the plug on all college football this season?

Because the decision makers are so thickheaded I'm going to guess about two dozen more.

[JustAnotherFan]

Georgia State QB out for the year due to a heart condition after getting Covid.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/wingoz/status/1296486281405501440?s=20[/tweet]

Props to GSU that they had protocols in place to catch this.

So what's the over/under on the number of athletes who need to do the same before they finally pull the plug on all college football this season?

Because the decision makers are so thickheaded I'm going to guess about two dozen more.

[OutsiderFan]

Don't worry, the goal posts will be moved enough to ensure money is generated from ACC, Big-12, and SEC TV contracts, come hell or high water, or no matter how many athletes are infected with Covid-19. Their immediate safety is of top priority, so they can play football.  Nobody in a decision making position in those conferences gives a damn about long-term student athlete health after their eligibility runs out. If they do, they have a strange way of demonstrating it.

[OutsiderFan]

Don't worry, the goal posts will be moved enough to ensure money is generated from ACC, Big-12, and SEC TV contracts, come hell or high water, or no matter how many athletes are infected with Covid-19. Their immediate safety is of top priority, so they can play football.  Nobody in a decision making position in those conferences gives a damn about long-term student athlete health after their eligibility runs out. If they do, they have a strange way of demonstrating it.

[82 Card]

Maybe they should do like restaurants and play at half capacity:  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27_NNh7kdqg

;-)

[82 Card]

Maybe they should do like restaurants and play at half capacity:  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27_NNh7kdqg

;-)

[OutsiderFan]

Six Notre Dame football players tested positive this week. Practice has been halted, but nobody even hinting they might pull plug on their season.

What's the O/U on how many infected players ND must have to cancel season?  I'll set it at 20. Y'all got the over or the under here?

[OutsiderFan]

Six Notre Dame football players tested positive this week. Practice has been halted, but nobody even hinting they might pull plug on their season.

What's the O/U on how many infected players ND must have to cancel season?  I'll set it at 20. Y'all got the over or the under here?

[CardinalSagehen]

Six Notre Dame football players tested positive this week. Practice has been halted, but nobody even hinting they might pull plug on their season.

What's the O/U on how many infected players ND must have to cancel season?  I'll set it at 20. Y'all got the over or the under here?

Definitely the over. Clemson Football had 43 cases and counting as of July 10, and today they have the glory of being AP Preseason #1.  (Note that Stanford Football had 12 positives, and they weren’t even scrimmaging.)

We can only conclude that shutdown of football has little to do with case numbers.  It has more to do with the political affiliation of your Conference leadership. ND has chosen to lock arms with the ACC, which clearly does not give a crap about the medical uncertainty and added risk to the community. They had most of the Clemson team testing positive and still plowed ahead.

[CardinalSagehen]

Six Notre Dame football players tested positive this week. Practice has been halted, but nobody even hinting they might pull plug on their season.

What's the O/U on how many infected players ND must have to cancel season?  I'll set it at 20. Y'all got the over or the under here?

Definitely the over. Clemson Football had 43 cases and counting as of July 10, and today they have the glory of being AP Preseason #1.  (Note that Stanford Football had 12 positives, and they weren’t even scrimmaging.)

We can only conclude that shutdown of football has little to do with case numbers.  It has more to do with the political affiliation of your Conference leadership. ND has chosen to lock arms with the ACC, which clearly does not give a crap about the medical uncertainty and added risk to the community. They had most of the Clemson team testing positive and still plowed ahead.

[Farm93]

Six Notre Dame football players tested positive this week. Practice has been halted, but nobody even hinting they might pull plug on their season.

What's the O/U on how many infected players ND must have to cancel season?  I'll set it at 20. Y'all got the over or the under here?

I will take the OVER for football, for sure.   I would guess a football team in the ACC, SEC or Big12 would need at least 50 players scheduled to miss a game before a team would consider a voluntary forfeit of THAT game.  And any team in those conferences would keep playing games, if permitted, as long as they have 20 or more players testing negative for COVID19.

One might think a school would cancel, but the conference needs the TV content even if the final score is 72-3, or whatever.

After watching UNC, UND and Bama struggle with COVID the last 2 weeks on their campuses and towns there is no doubt in my mind they will provide TV content....errr....play games as long as the relevant layers of government allow the games to be televised....errr...played.

[Farm93]

Six Notre Dame football players tested positive this week. Practice has been halted, but nobody even hinting they might pull plug on their season.

What's the O/U on how many infected players ND must have to cancel season?  I'll set it at 20. Y'all got the over or the under here?

I will take the OVER for football, for sure.   I would guess a football team in the ACC, SEC or Big12 would need at least 50 players scheduled to miss a game before a team would consider a voluntary forfeit of THAT game.  And any team in those conferences would keep playing games, if permitted, as long as they have 20 or more players testing negative for COVID19.

One might think a school would cancel, but the conference needs the TV content even if the final score is 72-3, or whatever.

After watching UNC, UND and Bama struggle with COVID the last 2 weeks on their campuses and towns there is no doubt in my mind they will provide TV content....errr....play games as long as the relevant layers of government allow the games to be televised....errr...played.

[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?

[82lsju]

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?

for Clemson it probably depends on if/when Trevor Lawrence would test positive

[82lsju]

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?

for Clemson it probably depends on if/when Trevor Lawrence would test positive

[BostonCard]

Again, positive tests, in and of themselves, aren't that big a deal, so long as a) they don't lead to serious disease (including myocarditis) and b) they don't propagate the infection to vulnerable populations.

The risk of b can be mitigated by making sure that athletes stay away from vulnerable people (perhaps easier said than done).  The question is what is the risk of a is, and what the acceptable risk is.  We know it is generally pretty low, but given the Georgia State QB, we know it is not 0.  Would college football accept a 1% risk (one player per team) of myocarditis or severe COVID?  And to what extent does the natural history of COVID-19 myocarditis change that.  If any of the players wind up with permanent, career-ending heart failure as a result (it is worth reminding people that players intrinsically accept a small but non-zero chance of a career-ending spinal cord injury [as Curtis Williams, the UW linebacker, suffered during a game against Stanford]).  There is a line somewhere; the problem is that we don't know which side of it we will wind up.

BC

[BostonCard]

Again, positive tests, in and of themselves, aren't that big a deal, so long as a) they don't lead to serious disease (including myocarditis) and b) they don't propagate the infection to vulnerable populations.

The risk of b can be mitigated by making sure that athletes stay away from vulnerable people (perhaps easier said than done).  The question is what is the risk of a is, and what the acceptable risk is.  We know it is generally pretty low, but given the Georgia State QB, we know it is not 0.  Would college football accept a 1% risk (one player per team) of myocarditis or severe COVID?  And to what extent does the natural history of COVID-19 myocarditis change that.  If any of the players wind up with permanent, career-ending heart failure as a result (it is worth reminding people that players intrinsically accept a small but non-zero chance of a career-ending spinal cord injury [as Curtis Williams, the UW linebacker, suffered during a game against Stanford]).  There is a line somewhere; the problem is that we don't know which side of it we will wind up.

BC

[CardinalSagehen]

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.

You are right - nobody in their right mind would proceed if they thought 0.3% of the population would perish from Covid. The standard clearly ought to be higher than that.  

I observe that five conferences, when faced with essentially the same facts, came to two different conclusions.  I doubt that the hospital capacity in Texas, Alabama and Florida is in materially better shape than California. In my opinion, the different decisions were more based on state and local health policies and attitudes, which dictate the level of true risk borne by the universities.  (It’s riskier to go against the grain.) Sadly, differences in state and local health policies are largely a function of local politics these days.  

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?

Not at all certain. I am personally quite ambivalent about it.  But I observe that the factors at work in this decision do not seem to include case volume or attack rate on a team.  If they did, the ACC would not be playing.  Why do you read so much else into this?

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.

The testing protocols are definitely better for the players that are playing. Is this the best use of fairly limited resources?  Retesting 100 players over and over so they can play a game as amateurs for our entertainment? My feeling is no.  

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.

Maybe. The benefits to the decision-makers of going ahead with the season are real and obvious.  But the potential cost to public health and the possible long-term implications for players are mostly externalities in their analysis. 

The risks and liability borne by the universities correlate very directly to the local restrictions in their municipalities.  If they go against the prevailing policies and attitudes in their parts of the country, or against the tide of public health orders, they’d be bearing quite a bit more risk and liability.  I have first-hand experience with this lately when comparing our company’s office reopening plans in San Mateo Co. versus Maricopa Co., AZ.   Hence my statement about political affiliations... which was a major oversimplification but I think helpful in understanding what has unfolded. Largely, state and local policies are a reflection of red state / blue state. All the stats were much worse in AZ, including hospitalizations, but the path to re-opening our office (if we wanted it) was much clearer and less risky from a financial perspective in AZ.  

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.

As we all do. I don’t even know who you’re arguing with here.

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?

Absolutely, yes. And based on whatever I’ve read from most experts, I believe immunity is probably somewhat durable and certainly durable enough to get through a football season. The question wasn’t about Clemson and what is best for them specifically. It was about Notre Dame and other teams.

[CardinalSagehen]

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.

You are right - nobody in their right mind would proceed if they thought 0.3% of the population would perish from Covid. The standard clearly ought to be higher than that.  

I observe that five conferences, when faced with essentially the same facts, came to two different conclusions.  I doubt that the hospital capacity in Texas, Alabama and Florida is in materially better shape than California. In my opinion, the different decisions were more based on state and local health policies and attitudes, which dictate the level of true risk borne by the universities.  (It’s riskier to go against the grain.) Sadly, differences in state and local health policies are largely a function of local politics these days.  

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?

Not at all certain. I am personally quite ambivalent about it.  But I observe that the factors at work in this decision do not seem to include case volume or attack rate on a team.  If they did, the ACC would not be playing.  Why do you read so much else into this?

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.

The testing protocols are definitely better for the players that are playing. Is this the best use of fairly limited resources?  Retesting 100 players over and over so they can play a game as amateurs for our entertainment? My feeling is no.  

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.

Maybe. The benefits to the decision-makers of going ahead with the season are real and obvious.  But the potential cost to public health and the possible long-term implications for players are mostly externalities in their analysis. 

The risks and liability borne by the universities correlate very directly to the local restrictions in their municipalities.  If they go against the prevailing policies and attitudes in their parts of the country, or against the tide of public health orders, they’d be bearing quite a bit more risk and liability.  I have first-hand experience with this lately when comparing our company’s office reopening plans in San Mateo Co. versus Maricopa Co., AZ.   Hence my statement about political affiliations... which was a major oversimplification but I think helpful in understanding what has unfolded. Largely, state and local policies are a reflection of red state / blue state. All the stats were much worse in AZ, including hospitalizations, but the path to re-opening our office (if we wanted it) was much clearer and less risky from a financial perspective in AZ.  

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.

As we all do. I don’t even know who you’re arguing with here.

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?

Absolutely, yes. And based on whatever I’ve read from most experts, I believe immunity is probably somewhat durable and certainly durable enough to get through a football season. The question wasn’t about Clemson and what is best for them specifically. It was about Notre Dame and other teams.

[82lsju]

There is a line somewhere; the problem is that we don't know which side of it we will wind up.

BC

you might, or might not, be able to estimate the location of the line from the early 1900s when football deaths were deemed a problem, scaling for larger participation today

The Chicago Tribune reported that in 1904 alone, there were 18 football deaths and 159 serious injuries, mostly among prep school players.

In what the Chicago Tribune referred to as a “death harvest,” the 1905 football season resulted in 19 player deaths and 137 serious injuries

https://www.history.com/news/how-teddy-r...d-football

[82lsju]

There is a line somewhere; the problem is that we don't know which side of it we will wind up.

BC

you might, or might not, be able to estimate the location of the line from the early 1900s when football deaths were deemed a problem, scaling for larger participation today

The Chicago Tribune reported that in 1904 alone, there were 18 football deaths and 159 serious injuries, mostly among prep school players.

In what the Chicago Tribune referred to as a “death harvest,” the 1905 football season resulted in 19 player deaths and 137 serious injuries

https://www.history.com/news/how-teddy-r...d-football

[Goose]

There is a line somewhere; the problem is that we don't know which side of it we will wind up.

BC

you might, or might not, be able to estimate the location of the line from the early 1900s when football deaths were deemed a problem, scaling for larger participation today

The Chicago Tribune reported that in 1904 alone, there were 18 football deaths and 159 serious injuries, mostly among prep school players.

In what the Chicago Tribune referred to as a “death harvest,” the 1905 football season resulted in 19 player deaths and 137 serious injuries

https://www.history.com/news/how-teddy-r...d-football

So equivalently we could lose about 72 people playing football. Not all the deaths would be COVID-19 necessarily. Interesting thought, not sure it indicates much. Our values have changed a lot since 1904 when life expectancy was 47 years old, while today it is 78.93.

[Goose]

There is a line somewhere; the problem is that we don't know which side of it we will wind up.

BC

you might, or might not, be able to estimate the location of the line from the early 1900s when football deaths were deemed a problem, scaling for larger participation today

The Chicago Tribune reported that in 1904 alone, there were 18 football deaths and 159 serious injuries, mostly among prep school players.

In what the Chicago Tribune referred to as a “death harvest,” the 1905 football season resulted in 19 player deaths and 137 serious injuries

https://www.history.com/news/how-teddy-r...d-football

So equivalently we could lose about 72 people playing football. Not all the deaths would be COVID-19 necessarily. Interesting thought, not sure it indicates much. Our values have changed a lot since 1904 when life expectancy was 47 years old, while today it is 78.93.

[lex24]

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.

[lex24]

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.

[CardinalSagehen]

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.

[CardinalSagehen]

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.

[OutsiderFan]

This probably doesn't impact sports, but the idea of having college students on campus isn't looking very wise. 

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1298141680965758977[/tweet]

[OutsiderFan]

This probably doesn't impact sports, but the idea of having college students on campus isn't looking very wise. 

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1298141680965758977[/tweet]

[lex24]

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.

[lex24]

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.

[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."

[M T]

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.

If these are PCR tests, then I believe you already have the answer.  If they are doing serological tests, then the answer is different.
I am not certain these are PCR tests. The best I can find about the tests is this page.

Even if one says this was 531 cases (Aug 19-24 for UA) for 80,000 people (generously guessing at 40K students, 40K fac/staff), in terms of cases per 100K population, that's equivalent to Santa Clara County having more than 12,000 cases in a week. (SCC has had a grand total of 16,151 cases.)

I will also point out that this number of cases this fast suggest to me that these were imported.  BUT, since they previously tested nearly 30K students before registration, these may all be new cases starting in the last week, with exposure in the last 3 weeks.

I expect we will have more details soon.   I'm hoping they are reporting antibody tests.

[M T]

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.

If these are PCR tests, then I believe you already have the answer.  If they are doing serological tests, then the answer is different.
I am not certain these are PCR tests. The best I can find about the tests is this page.

Even if one says this was 531 cases (Aug 19-24 for UA) for 80,000 people (generously guessing at 40K students, 40K fac/staff), in terms of cases per 100K population, that's equivalent to Santa Clara County having more than 12,000 cases in a week. (SCC has had a grand total of 16,151 cases.)

I will also point out that this number of cases this fast suggest to me that these were imported.  BUT, since they previously tested nearly 30K students before registration, these may all be new cases starting in the last week, with exposure in the last 3 weeks.

I expect we will have more details soon.   I'm hoping they are reporting antibody tests.