College Football in 2020 in danger?

[ztejas 43418]

5 minutes ago, touchthemonolith said:

So what's an acceptable number of football-related deaths in 2020?

I feel like people that say things like this are out of touch with their own mortality. Football is already a dangerous game. Everyone playing it knows that. Playing football doesn't make covid any more dangerous. It might put vulnerable populations in greater risk of catching the disease, but the players will either get covid or they won't regardless of whether or not they are playing football.

At some point you can either choose to keep living in fear or get back along with your life. People in London didn't quit going to work because the Luftwaffe was bombing them every night. 

[Tex Pete 20342]

9 minutes ago, touchthemonolith said:

So what's an acceptable number of football-related deaths in 2020?

That's a question for those who are terrified of CFB this fall to answer.

If that answer is one death or greater, I am not sure what the consternation is about. Football has always been and will always be a dangerous sport. The great thing is that no one is making anyone else play it.

How many players do you think are going to die of covid or covid complications this season?

[Newy25 7668]

3 hours ago, THUJONE said:

There are a plethora of lingering issues caused by Covid. And after experiencing this pandemic now for going on six months, this country has yet to wake up and get control of it--or to account for all of the medical probs its causing down the road. Most are heart and lung related. A not insubstantial number of football careers are going to come to a screeching halt for kids who had covid and got "over" it, only to be damaged by the sequelae (some of which we know and some we don't yet). The entire endeavor to force football this year is selfish on the part of the schools and anyone pushing for it. 

If CFB even makes it to the end of the season and we have one, two, a handful of player deaths, are people going to be in here justifying it? Of course. And it's pretty sickening. 

And yes, I will watch the games if they are on. But I'd prefer they weren't for the players' sake. 

That is a nice sentiment but it would be even better if it were grounded in some scientific basis. Every argument used to say this has been a player safety issue so far has been refuted or even found to be untrue so far. 

Im glad I was off the grid the last few weeks to miss watching the Big 10 shit all of itself and wipe its hand on the mirrors with their Covid/player safety platform. 

[South Austin 52463]

8 minutes ago, Tex Pete said:

How many players do you think are going to die of covid or covid complications this season?

 

[Royalfan5 2354]

16 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I feel like people that say things like this are out of touch with their own mortality. Football is already a dangerous game. Everyone playing it knows that. Playing football doesn't make covid any more dangerous. It might put vulnerable populations in greater risk of catching the disease, but the players will either get covid or they won't regardless of whether or not they are playing football.

At some point you can either choose to keep living in fear or get back along with your life. People in London didn't quit going to work because the Luftwaffe was bombing them every night. 

They also went to the underground when the Luftwaffe was overhead too. 

[kopp0e 1135]

Its "leaking" that B1G will have no vote today..?

[touchthemonolith 646]

1 minute ago, Tex Pete said:

That's a question for those who are terrified of CFB this fall to answer.

If that answer is one death or greater, I am not sure what the consternation is about. Football has always been and will always be a dangerous sport. The great thing is that no one is making anyone else play it.

How many players do you think are going to die of covid or covid complications this season?

Well, no. It's a question I asked you because I'm curious about your answer.

I have absolutely no idea how many players are going to die of COVID or COVID complications this season. And to be clear, nobody does. Least of all anyone on this message board. A lot of people have a lot of different ideas about what it might look like to hold a college football season during this pandemic based on the data we have, but nobody really knows because nobody has ever tried it before. There will likely be consequences that nobody is even considering right now. Maybe no players or coaches will have any adverse health consequences whatsoever, maybe the health consequences for players and coaches will be catastrophic. Probably somewhere in between.

That's why I shy away from making statements like, "The numbers will not be substantially higher this year."

[ztejas 43418]

8 minutes ago, Royalfan5 said:

They also went to the underground when the Luftwaffe was overhead too. 

I mean, yeah. It's a silly analogy for many reasons if you really break it down. Was more going after the "living in fear" idea. I don't see playing football as much of a blip on the overall covid radar. I think it would be similar to what the MLB has done.

[ztejas 43418]

5 minutes ago, touchthemonolith said:

I have absolutely no idea how many players are going to die of COVID or COVID complications this season. And to be clear, nobody does.

I think we can at least get a pretty fucking good idea. This is obviously being brought up in any meeting where deciding whether to play or not is the subject.

There have been 200k deaths and 6 million cases in this country. Covid might still be mysterious, but I don't think it's some grand mystery anymore. I think the risks are pretty well realized at this point and now it's up to us to decide what risk taking we are comfortable with and what risk taking needs to be condemned and disallowed. 

[DenverHorn 56]

23 minutes ago, Newy25 said:

That is a nice sentiment but it would be even better if it were grounded in some scientific basis. Every argument used to say this has been a player safety issue so far has been refuted or even found to be untrue so far. 

Im glad I was off the grid the last few weeks to miss watching the Big 10 shit all of itself and wipe its hand on the mirrors with their Covid/player safety platform. 

I'm on this page.   To my understanding, myocarditis or any cardiomyopathy risks from CV19 are easier to detect, more manageable and less likely to occur than any of the existing threats players encounter by the realistic nature of the sport (CTE, pain killers, steroids, opioids, heart disease etc.),   I could care less if the season goes on or not compared to my concerns that decisions are being made based on politics, single minded analysis or path of least resistance.  Economics & secondary health/life effects to be blunt are my long term concerns.   

As it relates to the B1G, the primary economic impact from 5-7 home games ( businesses within the county alone) equates to a billion+ in revenue conference wide.  The secondary losses would include state & local taxes, surrounding counties & the domino effect that trickles down from everyone associated AKA the entire community.    Iowa City, State College, Ann Arbor, Champaign, Lafayette etc will be devastated and without consideration to the academic/regular student population which makes it even more concerning.

If it's a clear & present threat it needs the attention & decisions it deserves, I just haven't seen any empirical evidence to suggest it's the real issue or an outstanding threat.   Otherwise if not equally, one must take into consideration the back end which is a definitive & certain issue.    Open & willing to listen & learn, til then...

[utee94 15811]

It's not like players will only start getting COVID once games begin.  These players have been together for over two months doing "voluntary" conditioning and practices.  They've been with the coaches for a month now, as well.  Most universities have already had multiple cases of COVID hit their teams.  Those players have for the most part quarantined, gotten over any symptoms of illness they might have experienced, and gotten back to practice with their teammates.  This isn't some brand new thing they're dealing with, they've already experienced it, it's been going on for several months now.

 

[touchthemonolith 646]

38 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I think we can at least get a pretty fucking good idea. This is obviously being brought up in any meeting where deciding whether to play or not is the subject.

There have been 200k deaths and 6 million cases in this country. Covid might still be mysterious, but I don't think it's some grand mystery anymore. I think the risks are pretty well realized at this point and now it's up to us to decide what risk taking we are comfortable with and what risk taking needs to be condemned and disallowed. 

What was it, like, nine weeks ago that we thought we understood the risks about slowly opening up Texas bars and restaurants at the time? It doesn't really seem like we did looking back. A lot of really smart people discussed it at length, in-depth, very recently, and a lot of them got it wrong. (No, I'm not saying CFB will cause a COVID spike like opening up bars and restaurants did this past summer, and I'm not saying that we shouldn't be trusting experts).

I totally agree, it's not a grand mystery. It's hard to fathom how much progress we've made even in the past nine weeks. But, to my knowledge, there's nothing even remotely resembling a consensus among experts about the safety of playing college football right now. We definitely have some idea what it's going to look like, but I think you might be overstating* how clear that picture is.

Edited September 4, 2020 by touchthemonolith

[Tex Pete 20342]

42 minutes ago, touchthemonolith said:

Well, no. It's a question I asked you because I'm curious about your answer.

I have absolutely no idea how many players are going to die of COVID or COVID complications this season. And to be clear, nobody does. Least of all anyone on this message board. A lot of people have a lot of different ideas about what it might look like to hold a college football season during this pandemic based on the data we have, but nobody really knows because nobody has ever tried it before. There will likely be consequences that nobody is even considering right now. Maybe no players or coaches will have any adverse health consequences whatsoever, maybe the health consequences for players and coaches will be catastrophic. Probably somewhere in between.

That's why I shy away from making statements like, "The numbers will not be substantially higher this year."

Well, they won't. But I agree that no one knows exactly how this season will go.

I absolutely think we should exercise great caution as we proceed, but I think we should proceed until something indicates we should shut it all down. I am not all in on a season at all costs.

I have been responsible for a couple of businesses' covid response and management over the last few months, and we have had absolutely no issues with transmission because we have formulated a sound plan and stuck to that plan no matter what occurred. We haven't been closed for even a day, and we have customers in and out every day. I also have a family member who is in charge of a 6A school's athletic department covid response and management with over 800 athletes. Same thing: formulate a sound plan, stick to that plan, and closely monitor everything that goes on.  

[DenverHorn 56]

17 minutes ago, touchthemonolith said:

What was it, like, nine weeks ago that we thought we understood the risks about slowly opening up Texas bars and restaurants at the time? It doesn't really seem like we did looking back. A lot of really smart people discussed it at length, in-depth, very recently, and a lot of them got it wrong. (No, I'm not saying CFB will cause a COVID spike like opening up bars and restaurants did this past summer, and I'm not saying that we shouldn't be trusting experts).

I totally agree, it's not a grand mystery. It's hard to fathom how much progress we've made even in the past nine weeks. But, to my knowledge, there's nothing even remotely resembling a consensus among experts about the safety of playing college football right now. We definitely have some idea what it's going to look like, but I think you might be overstating* how clear that picture is.

I respectfully challenge this line of thought.  I think we have a solid grasp on COVID & myocarditis cases as related to likelihood, detection & risk evaluation.

[HeyMcFly 144]

4 hours ago, Cornfusion said:

It was sometime after 2003, if I remember correctly.

Jan 5th 2006 I believe.

[BrazilHorn 6586]

1 hour ago, touchthemonolith said:

Well, no. It's a question I asked you because I'm curious about your answer.

I have absolutely no idea how many players are going to die of COVID or COVID complications this season. And to be clear, nobody does. Least of all anyone on this message board. A lot of people have a lot of different ideas about what it might look like to hold a college football season during this pandemic based on the data we have, but nobody really knows because nobody has ever tried it before. There will likely be consequences that nobody is even considering right now. Maybe no players or coaches will have any adverse health consequences whatsoever, maybe the health consequences for players and coaches will be catastrophic. Probably somewhere in between.

That's why I shy away from making statements like, "The numbers will not be substantially higher this year."

I hesitate to engage here as with the low post count you are probably a sock/troll. (but I am going to give benefit of doubt). While you are right that no one knows the exact count of deaths related to CV19 (or complications) from college football players this year we do have data going back in the US since the March time frame that shows incredibly low mortality rates for people in this age group. (this has been posted by me in detail further up this thread).  These incredibly low numbers are before you account for the overall fitness level of a college football player vs the typical American within that same age cohort.

I completely agree there may be long term effects to them having CV19. I also believe that the testing/"bubbling"/screening these players receive as athletes is far greater than they would as a typical college student and you could easily make the argument that in fact from a statistical perspective their CV19 related outcomes will be far superior than those of a normal college student.

To me people arguing whether to play or not play are having the wrong debate. The debate is to whether to allow students on campus at all. (and what their CV19 outcomes would be in doing so vs not).

If you believe that having students 100% be at home will lead to lower CV19 infection rates/deaths etc then there you go. If you believe that their odds of getting CV19 remain the same whether on campus vs at home given that this age demographic will do what it does, then there you go.

The debate centers around whether or not a college athlete in the course of playing football stands a HIGHER chance of contracting CV19 vs if they were not playing football and simply attending school or living at home.

This can be easily tracked over time. There have been 13 UT football players that have tested positive for CV19 since March. To my knowledge all of the football player's cases were prior to fall camp starting. Since July 28th there have been Zero cases on the football team. UT has reported a significant (looks now to be >100) in past 4 days alone. If this continues then clearly football players in the manner they have been sequestered are far safer from CV19 then they would be as a general student.

I get concerns, I just think the way UT (can only speak for what I am observing here) is handling player safety is good. I believe to some degree this is happening elsewhere as for S.Alabama & S. Miss last night 100% of players were CV19 negative. Doubt that can be said for universities as a whole.

[Dnaguy 11944]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

I feel like people that say things like this are out of touch with their own mortality. Football is already a dangerous game. Everyone playing it knows that. Playing football doesn't make covid any more dangerous. It might put vulnerable populations in greater risk of catching the disease, but the players will either get covid or they won't regardless of whether or not they are playing football.

At some point you can either choose to keep living in fear or get back along with your life. People in London didn't quit going to work because the Luftwaffe was bombing them every night. 

Going to work during the Battle of Britain didn’t somehow increase the number of German bombers In the air the next night.

People were just as much at risk going to work than staying home. This is a bad example and one that isn’t remotely close to the same situation that we’re facing now.

You’d think by now people would understand communicable diseases and how they work.

Playing football isn’t necessary for society to function. Working, going to school, buying food, etc are all essential to the functioning of society.

It’s a game. A game that generates a lot of $, but one that we can do without for 1 year. Does it suck if it goes away? Yes. 

People’s appetite for risking the health and welfare of others never ceases to amaze me.

[HoustonFrog 368]

Lot of smoke that the TCU vs SMU game a week from today is going to be cancelled

[GreenspointTexas 9600]

2 minutes ago, HoustonFrog said:

Lot of smoke that the TCU vs SMU game a week from today is going to be cancelled

Why

[Hagbard Celine 10853]

7 minutes ago, BrazilHorn said:

I hesitate to engage here as with the low post count you are probably a sock/troll. (but I am going to give benefit of doubt). While you are right that no one knows the exact count of deaths related to CV19 (or complications) from college football players this year we do have data going back in the US since the March time frame that shows incredibly low mortality rates for people in this age group. (this has been posted by me in detail further up this thread).  These incredibly low numbers are before you account for the overall fitness level of a college football player vs the typical American within that same age cohort.

I completely agree there may be long term effects to them having CV19. I also believe that the testing/"bubbling"/screening these players receive as athletes is far greater than they would as a typical college student and you could easily make the argument that in fact from a statistical perspective their CV19 related outcomes will be far superior than those of a normal college student.

To me people arguing whether to play or not play are having the wrong debate. The debate is to whether to allow students on campus at all. (and what their CV19 outcomes would be in doing so vs not).

If you believe that having students 100% be at home will lead to lower CV19 infection rates/deaths etc then there you go. If you believe that their odds of getting CV19 remain the same whether on campus vs at home given that this age demographic will do what it does, then there you go.

The debate centers around whether or not a college athlete in the course of playing football stands a HIGHER chance of contracting CV19 vs if they were not playing football and simply attending school or living at home.

This can be easily tracked over time. There have been 13 UT football players that have tested positive for CV19 since March. To my knowledge all of the football player's cases were prior to fall camp starting. Since July 28th there have been Zero cases on the football team. UT has reported a significant (looks now to be >100) in past 4 days alone. If this continues then clearly football players in the manner they have been sequestered are far safer from CV19 then they would be as a general student.

I get concerns, I just think the way UT (can only speak for what I am observing here) is handling player safety is good. I believe to some degree this is happening elsewhere as for S.Alabama & S. Miss last night 100% of players were CV19 negative. Doubt that can be said for universities as a whole.

It's not just about the players.

[totallynotabuttpirate 5396]

2 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

Why

There's a shortage of towels. 

[Dnaguy 11944]

5 minutes ago, HoustonFrog said:

Lot of smoke that the TCU vs SMU game a week from today is going to be cancelled

 

3 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

Why

 

Whatever happens, the decision will likely be panned.

If you ask me, this topic is too hot to handle.

The Big12, TCU, and SMU just don’t have the level of skillet takes to execute a game in this environment.

You’d need an iron grip on all the players to ensure that everyone can play this thing without potentially spreading Covid.

[BrazilHorn 6586]

4 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

It's not just about the players.

Don't disagree but that other poster was saying "You cannot guarantee no Players will die" etc

Coaches/staff/vendors etc are a separate beast.

[4th&Five 41525]

smu is playing tomorrow so i doubt the issue is on their end.

[Cornfusion 250]

Quote

They also went to the underground when the Luftwaffe was overhead too.

...even though they were Spitfire pilots in the RAF.  The world hates a coward.

Edited September 4, 2020 by Cornfusion

[touchthemonolith 646]

6 minutes ago, DenverHorn said:

I respectfully challenge this line of thought.  I think we have a solid grasp on COVID & myocarditis cases as related to likelihood, detection & risk evaluation.

You really don't have to (and shouldn't) take my word for it. There's been plenty written about the lack of scientific consensus about playing CFB this year, rich with differing opinions expressed directly by experts themselves.

USA Today: Same data. Same research. But different conclusions on safety of college football.

Sports Illustrated: 'It's a F------ Mess': How and Why Football Conferences Are Arriving at Opposing Medical Conclusions

WebMD: Will COVID Sideline the College Football Season?

[J.R. Juniors Junior Jr. 1084]

I know this isn't the general CFB discussion thread, but the 3 games so far have had one thing in common: they have taken forever.  IIRC they all have lasted about 4 hours.  For the sake of player safety, (both disease exposure and CTE/other injuries) clock rules more like the NFL's should be adopted.  The college clock rules were not meant for the current pass-heavy game.  Shorter games also make for better competitive balance between teams, as the favorite is more likely to have time to come back under the current system.

In summation: let's make it so aggy really did just run out of time.

Edited September 4, 2020 by J.R. Juniors Junior Jr.

[HoustonFrog 368]

smu is playing tomorrow so i doubt the issue is on their end.

Rumors that a significant portion of the TCU team has to quarantine due to the protocols

[usmc0331horn 953]

4 minutes ago, J.R. Juniors Junior Jr. said:

I know this isn't the general CFB discussion thread, but the 3 games so far have had one thing in common: they have taken forever.  IIRC they all have lasted about 4 hours.  For the sake of player safety, (both disease exposure and CTE/other injuries) clock rules more like the NFL's should be adopted.  The college clock rules were not meant for the current pass-heavy game.  Shorter games also make for better competitive balance between teams, as the favorite is more likely to have time to come back under the current system.

In summation: let's really make it so aggy just ran out of time.

Why I just don't watch many games just cause they're on anymore. Too many stoppages and are way too long.

[kopp0e 1135]

Most schools seem to be getting testing under control:

 

[Hank_Hill 18803]

46 minutes ago, HoustonFrog said:

Rumors that a significant portion of the TCU team has to quarantine due to the protocols

So make Gary play his 5th string lineup. I see no problems

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

Absolutely perfect weather here in Chicago.  Made even more perfect listening to OSU fans crying on the patio about getting fucked over.  Damn, this is one tasty beer. 

[Eugene11 379]

3 hours ago, Royalfan5 said:

They also went to the underground when the Luftwaffe was overhead too. 

im sure they were screaming about their rights and amendments and saying fuck you government you arent the boss of me!     we are an extremely selfish people. 

[Monster 219]

3 hours ago, Newy25 said:

That is a nice sentiment but it would be even better if it were grounded in some scientific basis. Every argument used to say this has been a player safety issue so far has been refuted or even found to be untrue so far. 

Im glad I was off the grid the last few weeks to miss watching the Big 10 shit all of itself and wipe its hand on the mirrors with their Covid/player safety platform. 

But, but...the guy that's famous for drawing cartoon dicks said we shouldn't play football this year. 

 

 

[touchthemonolith 646]

1 hour ago, BrazilHorn said:

I hesitate to engage here as with the low post count you are probably a sock/troll. (but I am going to give benefit of doubt). While you are right that no one knows the exact count of deaths related to CV19 (or complications) from college football players this year we do have data going back in the US since the March time frame that shows incredibly low mortality rates for people in this age group.

I'm just new here. I don't know what a 'sock' is, but I hope I don't come across as a troll. I just like Longhorns sports: that's pretty much my whole deal. 

I don't disagree with much in your post. It's super promising that we've had success limiting the spread during fall camp, but can we use that to infer that we'll still be successful when it's Week 9 or Week 10 of the season and dudes have been traveling to and from college campuses all over the country for weeks? I don't know.

[Monster 219]

2 hours ago, Dnaguy said:

Playing football isn’t necessary for society to function. Working, going to school, buying food, etc are all essential to the functioning of society.

It’s a game. A game that generates a lot of $, but one that we can do without for 1 year.

It's a massive business that creates tens of thousands of jobs and keeps the lights on at Universities all over the US   And those Universities are the lifeblood for hundreds of thousands of people who live and work in the towns surrounding these schools.   Economies are interconnected. 

I do wonder how many people advocating for cancellation of other people's livelihoods have lost their own jobs or had their businesses destroyed by doomsday predictions that still haven't come true. 

CDC says this flu, on its own, has killed roughly 11,000 people in 8 months.   Average age of those who died is 79 years old.  Each year, roughly 36,000 people die in car wrecks.  For the 0-24 age range, you're far more likely to die in a car wreck than covid.   Should we stop people from driving?

If you want to quit your job for a year and wait around until the TV says it's "safe", go for it.  I'm sure you can do without money for 1 year, right?

Edited September 4, 2020 by Monster

[Don Johnson 4753]

On 9/3/2020 at 1:29 PM, Bartles said:

Wolken knowingly smacks the beehive on a regular basis, especially the stereotypical SEC fan base. But I would argue that's more his personality rather than some football-related agenda. None of these guys are robots. Tony Barnhart is another great journalist who is kind of an anti-Wolken...he tends to assuage the SEC folks. I trust both those guys when they report something, even just "from a P5 source."

Wolken approaches every sports subject with an agenda. Today’s example, which is completely fabricated. 

 

[mdleast 8289]

Shit...

[HoustonFrog 368]

Told y’all

[Hank_Hill 18803]

Not a chance GP could survive the rona

[MNLonghornFUKM 8817]

Should’ve taken the Clemson approach, TCU

[LonghornSean 3994]

Damn here's the tweet from TCU

 

[Don Johnson 4753]

The lengths TCU will go to to get out of this game. 

[Hank_Hill 18803]

Just now, Don Johnson said:

The lengths TCU will go to to get out of this game. 

Also this. Didn't want Buechele this year.

[texasstrong12 4668]

5 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

The lengths TCU will go to to get out of this game. 

Against a good team and with their QB injured this is definitely suspicious. 

This is why the Big 12 creating a standard for what justifies cancellations was a good thing. Teams would definitely use Covid19 as an excuse to get out of losses. 

Edited September 4, 2020 by texasstrong12

[Hank_Hill 18803]

Is anyone surprised Pattersons motley crew of headcases and alleged rapists may not have followed the protocols particularly closely?

[LTbear 4168]

Well that sucks 

[MNLonghornFUKM 8817]

Against a good team and with their QB injured this is definitely suspicious. 
This is why the Big 12 creating a standard for what justifies cancellations was a good thing. Teams would definitely use Covid19 as an excuse to get out of losses. 

Gonna be a ton of teams that are 3 or 4-0 that will be whining they didn’t get into the college football playoffs

[HoustonFrog 368]

Is anyone surprised Pattersons motley crew of headcases and alleged rapists may not have followed the protocols particularly closely?

Such bullshit man. Hah

[HoustonFrog 368]

Also this. Didn't want Buechele this year.

While I agree this is bush league and SMU should have forced TCU to play walk ons, the game was previously cancelled and then TCU reached out to reschedule when our FCS cancelled on us. So not a total dodge. Although to be fair that was before we found out our QB has a broken heart