Breaking on Pawl. B10...done for all fall sports. P10 will follow suit

[Liverpooldawg]

12,469 deaths in the U.S.

Where were the fear mongers then?

Well seeing that COVID has caused over 12 times as many deaths in only 6 months there just wasn't as much need to talk about it.

[Extendedcab]

This is what I'm confused about.

People say athletes shouldn't play because they don't get paid...but they actually do get real money, food/meal plans, access to state of the art health/gym/medical facilities, room and board, tuition and an actual stipend check.

People say that if the scholarship would be honored if an athlete chooses not to play this year then they would be ok with football season happening. THAT HAS BEEN DONE. All scholarships will be honored whether or not you choose to play.

People say that it would be ok to tplay if the university/program would take care of the athletes medical expenses if they get sick. THEY ARE. That is already a thing.

But I've seen journalists and "fans" of college sports saying this stuff and I'm thinking...are they stupid? Willfully ignorant? Or willfully deceitful? Because they HAVE to know this is already a thing but they are pretending like it's not to support their reasoning behind fall sports not happening.

Same thing with the myocarditis issue. It's not a new thing. Myocarditis can occur with any infection. Per the CDC there are approximately 1.5 MILLION cases of myocarditis per YEAR. SO why is it suddenly NOW that it is a massive major medical emergency. Did you know about 65% of people that get myocarditis recover naturally and never even know they have it?? But NOW it's an issue.

What happened to flattening the curve. We did that. Incorporated mask mandates. Dropped mortality rates and have declining cases across the nation for the past 3 week....but now we have to get to 0 cases per day to move forward with life???? Come on...stop moving the damn goal post.

It STINKS of fear mongering bullshit. Just yesterday there was a report of a healthy 7 year old dying of Covid. A TERRIBLE tragedy but right on cue it was used to bolster the "no fall sports" crowd. We had posters on here using it. Using a 7 year old's death to sew fear. No one was upset about the 120 children under 10 that died of the flu last year. Or the 200 the year before that. It's total bullshit, fear-mongering. **** that.

This virus is a terrible thing and certainly a health risk. Stay home if you must. Hide. Or...wear a mask, wash your hands, exercise, watch what you eat, live life.

Good post, I agree totally! I tried to rep but have to spread it around first.

[Indndawg]

yes there is quite much to analyze

Local man fighting St 4 cancer dies. Post mortem detects Covid. Cause of death of DC: Covid 19.

Please

[Gutter Cobreh]

Lots of people don't have the opportunity to negotiate. Lots of entry level positions don't get to negotiate. The NBA rookie scale for 1st rounders is pretty much set for all practical purposes. And what really happens is a lot of marginal players get "overpaid" and a lot of really good players get "underpaid". That's not that odd for a sports league and is exactly how the NBA is set up.

You're comparing a professional organization to one that involves amateurs. It isn't the same. I could understand somewhat if you compare what interns get paid while in school, but at the same time - those interns don't get a stipend while in school. The fact remains that the stipend is simply a cover to protect the outlandish amounts of money the athletes are currently bringing in for each school/conference and the athlete gets to provide no input to what amount he/she is worth.

IF that's the position you want to take we should shut down all college sports now because of potential long term costs of care for CTE. It would be crazy to ignore those risks that are specific to engaging in sports and then shut football down because of a risk that they assume in order to go to class or parties.

You didn't answer my question. How long is a school required to provide medical care for the athlete? The NFL has a players union that negotiates that on behalf of the players, so who looks out for the long-term interest of a student athlete?

We have never really held anybody liable for pandemics. We are a lot more litigious now and have crazy expectations about society's ability to prevent bad things from happening, so we might go against long standing precedent here, but it would be kind of wild for us to start expecting schools, employers, commercial stores, etc. to be liable for people that get infected in a pandemic.

Why do you think you sign a waiver in a lot of instances? Pandemics don't absolve someone from liability, it is simply too hard to prove that a specific action resulted in the transmission of the virus. At the same time, if my employer failed to provide proper precautions - they could be held liable. It isn't necessarily about being heavily into litigation, it is simply understanding that the organization doesn't have the means to ensure proper protection.

We flattened the curve pretty much everywhere outside of New York and New Jersey.

This is simply untrue. There were no other "hot spots" at that time, unless you want to include the nursing home in Washington State. Again though, please provide me with a map that shows we have flattened the curve from when identified to now.

People were hopeful that heat would reduce the spread, and it looks like it maybe did up until it got hot enough taht people started staying in highly air conditioned climates. We do have pretty good reason to believe that unless we already have some level of herd immunity, it will probably start picking back up when it gets colder. But that's pretty irrelevant to football. For the Southeast, much of the season will be played prior to traditional cold and flu season. For another, not playing football won't stop winter from coming.

So we were "hopeful" that heat would reduce, but that proved to be false. Now we're "hopeful" that we can squeeze in a football season before the cold and flu season - when in reality - college football typically lasts until January (which is well into flu season). The fact that you included an assumption that proved to be false does not help your case when advocating for a football season.

It's not fear mongering because the virus isn't real or bad, it's fear mongering because the response is so incredibly disproportionate to the risk. There will occasionally be a child that dies from this, just like they occasionally die from the flu. We don't lock kids up for flu season and negatively impact their learning or tell them they just don't get to socialize or participate in sports during cold and flu season.

And we would be in the same position no matter how seriously we took this once China handled it poorly and it mutated into a more contagious strain. We might could have slowed the spread, but never to the point that we could open up without it starting to rapidly spread again.

The response is disproportionate to the risk? The risk for whom? This whole idea that there will or won't be football isn't new. There were threads and comments about this in the Spring, yet we originally hoped that it would contained and we wouldn't have to address it.

I get the passion for sports and I try and understand both sides of the discussion. For some reason though, the hard line for people regarding this virus is college football. I realize this is a MS State sports board, but not one poster who advocates strongly for a season has stated that they love football so much they at least will have the NFL. We can't just have NFL, we have to have college sports and we must compare the two when making the case since one plays - the other should too - when in reality you can't. I've said this before and I'll say it again - if a University can't function without athletics subsidizing the bottom line then it has moved so far away from its original mission that it doesn't need to survive.

For what its worth, I want college football to play this fall.

[Johnson85]

You're comparing a professional organization to one that involves amateurs. It isn't the same. I could understand somewhat if you compare what interns get paid while in school, but at the same time - those interns don't get a stipend while in school. The fact remains that the stipend is simply a cover to protect the outlandish amounts of money the athletes are currently bringing in for each school/conference and the athlete gets to provide no input to what amount he/she is worth.

You were the ones arguing that them being paid is what matters. But if now the position is they aren't paid enough, it seems an odd remedy to just deny them the opportunity to play at all, which is certainly valuable to a lot of them either because they love football or because they don't have the type of measurables that are going to guarantee them a good shot at the NFL without good game film from their junior and/or senior year.

You didn't answer my question. How long is a school required to provide medical care for the athlete? The NFL has a players union that negotiates that on behalf of the players, so who looks out for the long-term interest of a student athlete?

I'm trying to understand your question so I can answer it meaningfully. If you take your question literally, then COVID is irrelevant. We already have a real health risk that arises out of actually playing the games. If the amount of medical care they already get is not sufficient for COVID, then it's not sufficient for CTE, and we just need to cancel football until lit is. If it is sufficient, then it's certainly sufficient for a risk that's not tied to football.

Why do you think you sign a waiver in a lot of instances?

Depends on the circumstance. Sometimes because they are enforceable. Sometimes to cut down on the risk of lawsuits b/c a lot of people will believe a waiver is enforceable even if it's not and/or because it gives leverage to in settlement negotiations even if its enforceability is questionable.

Pandemics don't absolve someone from liability, it is simply too hard to prove that a specific action resulted in the transmission of the virus. At the same time, if my employer failed to provide proper precautions - they could be held liable. It isn't necessarily about being heavily into litigation, it is simply understanding that the organization doesn't have the means to ensure proper protection.

IT's not jujst that it's too hard to prove transmission, it's that it's largely impossible for say commercial property owners or employers to stop respiratory viruses. And those things still apply. Football players are going to get the virus, whether they play football or not.

This is simply untrue. There were no other "hot spots" at that time, unless you want to include the nursing home in Washington State. Again though, please provide me with a map that shows we have flattened the curve from when identified to now.

You can click on just about any state other than New York and New Jersey here: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

But for a few:

https://www.worldometers.info/corona...a/mississippi/ -
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/florida/ -
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/texas/
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/georgia/
https://www.worldometers.info/corona...usa/tennessee/

and compare those to New York: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-york/
New Jersey https://www.worldometers.info/corona...sa/new-jersey/

So we were "hopeful" that heat would reduce, but that proved to be false.

No, hope isn't true or false. But again, it's not clear that the heat doesn't limit it; it just seems clear that behavioral responses like whether someone stays inside or not trumps any effect from the actual temperature on the virus.

Now we're "hopeful" that we can squeeze in a football season before the cold and flu season - when in reality - college football typically lasts until January (which is well into flu season). The fact that you included an assumption that proved to be false does not help your case when advocating for a football season.

We have a proposed SEC schedule and it doesn't go into January. But regardless, to the extent we start having problems when cold and flu season gets here, we could do something crazy to combat it, like change our behaviors. Maybe cancel football games if we there are big spikes or if it looks like football is contributing to a spread among vulnerable populations? But we could do that after there is a problem; we don't have to do it before.

The response is disproportionate to the risk? The risk for whom? This whole idea that there will or won't be football isn't new. There were threads and comments about this in the Spring, yet we originally hoped that it would contained and we wouldn't have to address it.

I get the passion for sports and I try and understand both sides of the discussion. For some reason though, the hard line for people regarding this virus is college football. I realize this is a MS State sports board, but not one poster who advocates strongly for a season has stated that they love football so much they at least will have the NFL. We can't just have NFL, we have to have college sports and we must compare the two when making the case since one plays - the other should too - when in reality you can't. I've said this before and I'll say it again - if a University can't function without athletics subsidizing the bottom line then it has moved so far away from its original mission that it doesn't need to survive.

For what its worth, I want college football to play this fall.

It's not about being passionate about sports. It's about not being crazy. If sacrificing football somehow allowed us to be less crazy and have less self-inflicted harms in other areas, I'd gladly sacrifice football. But cancelling football won't make us any less crazy or act less harmful in any other area. If anything, it will feed the craziness. IF we have football (like people have been having youth sports and will have high schools sports), it will remind people that we aren't dealing with the black death. And even though football is less important than people's livelihoods, it's an easy case to make, it'd still be pretty painful to take the opportunity away from student athletes for no significant gain, and there are a lot of people that rely on it for their livelihood also. SO yes, people will be advocating for it.