Things that make you go hmmmmm....If Bama/USC is off......why not
- Thread starter Mister Magoo
- Start date
The nonsense around college football this year is pathetic. These kids get a free education and I understand the economics but that is a drop in the bucket to the revenue generated. So you put these kids at risk so you can ring the registers. If I were those kids, I’d say I’d play but let’s arrange a compensation amount payable given the risks they are taking. If they play, I think huge changes results. Talk already about the Power 5 breaking off, it’s going to be bigger than that.
If the PAC 12 and Cal St schools don’t play Hawaii, BYU, and Idaho will all have open dates on 9/19, which would now be open for PSU
"... put these kids at risk ... but let’s arrange a compensation amount payable given the risks they are taking."
Let's set aside all the logistical virus-spreading issues with returning fans to stadiums/social distancing, etc. etc. for a minute and just simply focus on the hysteria of "putting these kids at risk" for a minute.
Can you calmly tell me exactly what the "risk" is to these kids if they catch the virus? Is it the risk that probably 50% of them won't even know they have the virus as they will be asymptomatic? Is it the risk that those that do have symptoms will show nothing more than mild symptoms for a few days - very similar to catching a flu or bad cold?
Is there a risk they could develop more serious medical issues and perhaps even death? Yes, I guess there is ... but have you taken a look at the statistics that show the majority of hospitalizations and deaths are to those that are elderly and/or have significant other underlying health issues (yes, I know you can always find some contrary examples)?
I would say that the risk of any one of these football players suffering a career ending injury in practice or a game over the course of the season is greater than the risk of one of these athletes developing life-altering complications from this virus over that same 4 or 5 month time period.
Now, I am not necessarily saying we MUST figure out a way to play college football this fall - there are certainly a lot of unknowns at this time. However, the hysteria of putting these kids at risk for catching a virus is getting overblown. If schools are back in session with students, I don't see any reason to suspend football. Fan attendance would be another issue to evaluate in another discussion.
Last edited:
Maybe we should ask the players if they agree with you. I’m guessing 99% would gladly play the season knowing the tiny risk
Of those 3, (assuming PSU is playing this Fall), BYU is the way to go. Idaho was non competitive previously and Hawaii jumped on the PSU bashing over JS.
Judging by the Cal State system folding already and USC reportedly telling Bama they won’t be able to play them to open the season, my guess is that we see a quick fall in dominoes over the next few weeks. University leadership and the ncaa are a ‘follow the leader’ crowd generally. It’s rare to see any of them go against the flow. I expect other systems will follow the Cal system lead shortly.
Maybe Sandy will name me an assistant AD? I could use the cash.
Hello? BYU. You might have an open date? Can we talk?
I'm really conflicted in this. If there's a possibility that a player can have long term lung damage or COPD if he gets the disease, should he risk it? As a parent of a player, what advise would you give them?
I would tell him to take the year off. Use the gap year to get some other life experience, and come back when things are clearer.
My wife and I actually had a similar decision making experience with my son when I was sick and he was an undergrad.
I guess I would also have a discussion about risk of breaking his neck in a tackling drill, the risk of being unable to walk normally after suffering a gruesome knee injury, the risk of CTE, and the risk of catching a std from a cheerleader.
I totally disagree with this post. Our cheerleaders DO NOT have STD's.
Yup, these young men are 18-23 years old and in prime physical condition. The have professionals making well over 6 figures dictating when and how they workout, what they eat and how they recover. Teams of medical professionals are available to the athletes in the way of team doctors and trainers. College athletes may be the demographic that is least at risk to experience adverse symptoms from Covid and 99% of them most likely want to play.
I'm guessing that football players at places like PSU, OSU, Texas, Alabama would be happy to divvy up 50% of the net surplus generated by their sport.
Isn't the risk more to the people that the players and staff subsequently contact ... and who they contact ...?
Sure, that’s all fine and I agree that kids taking the field during the regular course of play assume catastrophic risk. And they take a risk of death when flying to the games, etc. For this season, there is no way 108,000 people will ever be in Beaver Stadium so the powers to be see a big enough inherent risk by limiting attendance or prohibiting attendance altogether. So, the very power structure that is telling it’s fans to stay away is advocating its kids to be in close physical contact with both their teammates and their opponents. If they play in empty stadiums or even worse on campus without students, it’s ridiculous.
I agree the statistics of death are likely low for their age profile, etc. but if your kid played and God forbid got sick and passed away, I’m sure you’d sing a different tune after the fact. It’s a money grab plain and simple by a shady structure that stinks like a rotten fish.
This whole thing just shows you how the colleges and NCAA view their “workforce.”
We have history with BYU. 92 and 91 home and home and bowl game in 89
You’re kidding right? I understand that there is a movement to let college athletes get paid but saying I ain’t playing if I don’t get paid because of coronavirus isn’t going anywhere nor should it IMHO. Franklin has said repeatedly that sports return will be guided by science and that safety is paramount. I agree with that. But if a determination is made they can safely return then they should based upon the current rules.
No different than the circumstances of other employees who don’t have protection because they have been diagnosed with the virus, are waiting for a test result, etc. who simply don’t feel safe returning to work.
So how much “hazard pay” is Mr. Tailgate getting to go back to work? All this type of talk is fear mongering bullshyte. This is the same as when a purveyor we used with a contracted price tied to add a gas surcharge to our bills when gas prices went up. We told them to go pound sand because they weren’t going to lower our prices when gas prices dropped.
The risk is that you’ve locked yourself away from any exposure so your body can’t produce the antibodies to fight it. When you finally go back out, you’ll be at a higher risk of infection. Either get off your ass and go back out there or enjoy life in a plastic bubble.
The risk is that you’ve locked yourself away from any exposure so your body can’t produce the antibodies to fight it. When you finally go back out, you’ll be at a higher risk of infection. Either get off your ass and go back out there or enjoy life in a plastic bubble.
If you don’t see the disconnect of drastically reducing or eliminating g attendance completely but having kids compete, then I don’t know what to say to help you out. If it’s deemed not safe for fans to be close to one another, not fans aged x or older but ALL fans how is it safe for kids to be close? Whatever, enjoy.
Oh yeah, it’s the same as adding a gas surcharge versus contracting a disease that might end your life. What an absolutely moronic analogy. Seriously, you wrote that?
Thank you, you made my point EXACTLY. These aren’t employees regardless of the fact that they received economic benefit via their scholarship. They are student athletes being asked by institutions who make a literal shit ton off their backs to further stuff their coffers at their risk. So, the obvious response is that the institution says if you dint participate then your scholarship is subject to forfeiture. Here is what then happens. The team then goes on “strike” so that the institutions now face ZERO revenue.
This could be a seismic tilting point in the history of collegiate sports. It’s very possible the whole thing gets blown up very easily.
My point exactly! Thank you. Returning to safety for fans and teams BOTH, right? Of course you’re right if science extends safety to BOTH. But how can you have one without the other?
Of course they would. They are kids who feel they are invincible. Now ask their parents and see if it’s 99%.
Call it whatever you want, you get the point. I don’t think Bama, OSU, PSU are doing this to break even.
Do you ask for hazard pay every time you cross the street because a car might hit you? Or when someone in the same room sneezes because you might catch the flu and die? Because Covid has killed less people than the flu this year, so you may be entitled to some back wages.
Edit: Maybe Dave Portnoy can make you understand it a little better:
Last edited:
"put these kids at risk". Did you see the mortality statistics for people between 17-22 who are also young and healthy. Their "at risk" level is the risk of catching the flu. I'm not being a jerk, but after 3 months, the hard statistics bear out that someone in that age group (17-22) who is healthy, has very minimal symptoms which are about the equivalent to catching the flu or the cold. That is "the risk" factor for these guys.
I'm guessing that the amount of girls that each of these athletes gets on a college campus, each and every one of them is more "at risk" of catching herpes. ... So why don't we also require that because we do not want to put these guys at risk of catching an STD, we are requiring that they abstain from sex...... see how they receive that.
Similar threads
