Jump to content

Will There Be a 2020 Football Season?


Chances of a 2020 season?   

58 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

I think we are trading players health to watch football every year.

 

That's a bad argument to make and you know it. In fact,  it's the definition of the logical fallacy of equivocation.

 

There are things we can't avoid in football, for example contact, without it becoming soccer. You just accept the risk and do whatever you can to mitigate it. 

But, you can avoid COVID-19 related issues. To suggest we can't, is nonsense.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post

  • Replies 5.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Question: B1G, are you going to play football this fall?   B1G:

The original goal was to “flatten the curve” or so we were told. Somewhere we shifted to cancel everything until it is gone or a vaccine is found. 

Posted Images

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

And a segment of the responders here is going to look at that chart and say, "See? It doesn't kill people the age of college football players at a very high rate. Let's play football."

 

Ignoring that .676% of our team is 1-2 guys, so who do you kill off the team and feel good about playing the season?

 

And our coaches are what? Ages 35-64 or so? What if one of them gets it?

Sorry knapp but this is a way bad application of the percentages and bad math.

 

.121% (.00121) of all Covid deaths occur in the 15-24 yo age group. That’s just a percentage of the deaths, not the population. The 15-24 yo age demographic in this country is roughly 40M. So 125 deaths out of 40,000,000 = .000003125 or .0003125%. If we apply that to 150 players on our team we get .000468 deaths or about 1 death per every 320,000 persons in that age group. Odds are pretty fair that no CFB football player would die, and excellent odds that none of our players would die.
 

So we would not likely have 1 or 2 deaths.  Otherwise we’re in agreement.

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Jason Sitoke said:

I don't see anyone trivializing human life.  I do see some debate on what's being reported, and how to interpret data...which there is plenty to criticize, IMO.  

Wondering aloud how we can responsibly move forward is not callous.  People suffer everyday, and we're all affected by it at some point in our lives.  Yet we all come on here to occasionally complain about something as inconsequential as a game played by kids, and that's more than okay. 

 

I think most of us are wearing our masks and doing our best to protect each other.  However, trying to find a balance between risk and reward, life and livelihood...is an ok thing to discuss (or at least should be).  You could have taken the same tone and written the same post with respect to how we drive on the highway.  "Oh as long as we get to drive at lethal speeds to get to our precious football game.  Does no one care that tens of thousands of lives are lost on the road every year?!".  

 

Doesn't take much sophistication to go that route in pretty much any discussion.  Have at it, if you think it adds insight, I guess.

 

1. I believe that several here are trivializing human health and safety but they are just bordering on it without taking that next crucial step but they are definitely hovering on the edge; they are paying lip service to the notion of "student-athlete health is paramount."

2. As per callous, there is a fine line between being reckless and having a justification based on emotion. Callousness is just a step away. 

3. As per risk and reward, in this pandemic situation, when we know so little about it, we are attempting to get our reward (football being played) and the risk (player's health and safety). In this situation, as it stands, I would go with the situation that provides the scenario of "no risk" than to have a "little risk" because believe you me, there is a lawyer already planning on his next court case because of this. I can find a medical expert to serve as an expert witness to say what I want to say. That's no trick. 

4. Had I do a fictitious account of, let's say, a car accident, it would not have the same impact. No one dies in a car accident from Covid. Oh yeah, someone got totally oiled up on alcohol and hit the road driving and killed a family. And it was later found out that the drunk driver had covid. Covid did not create the car accident. Like Covid is linked to traffic accidents? Come on. Thus, the analogy would have been lost. I chose a situation that is probably more than likely real to get the point across. Yes, all those fans driving recklessly, speeding up and going 75 mph in a 40 mph zone to get to the game all had covid that caused them to do that behavior. Sure, makes sense.....if your in an alternate universe. 

5. If covid is an acceptable risk, why did all those schools cancel their seasons? Why did the Ivy League pull the plug? Why did a bunch of universities call off their voluntary workouts? Why aren't fans allowed to watch games in the stands? I mean, its an "acceptable risk" right? Then why wear a mask if there is an "acceptable risk"? I mean, we accept drunk drivers all the time. Why not just put out a few PSA's and tell people "do not get behind the wheel of your car if you have Covid"? Or we can have fans sign legal waivers that "in the event that you contract covid, you will not sue the university"? That would be easy, right?

6. But let's break this down.

a. a head injury is NOT contagious nor are you hospitalized and put on a ventilator unless the injury is so severe that it cuts off the respiratory system;

b. CTE is NOT contagious and does not require a ventilator;

c. drunk driving is NOT contagious and is not treated with a ventilator;

d. a torn ACL is NOT contagious and a ventilator is not needed; 

 

BUT Covid IS contagious. This is the big difference. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Branno said:

 

That's a bad argument to make and you know it. In fact,  it's the definition of the logical fallacy of equivocation.

 

There are things we can't avoid in football, for example contact, without it becoming soccer. You just accept the risk and do whatever you can to mitigate it. 

But, you can avoid COVID-19 related issues. To suggest we can't, is nonsense.

But you can avoid football altogether.  There is no fundamental need for football, yet we justify a pretty significant risk, mostly for entertainment value.

I haven't figured out how to avoid breathing, so I have to accept the risk and do what I can to mitigate it. 

 

It's not like playing football is the only place to contract Covid.   We're all pretty likely to be exposed to Covid-19, whether we play football or not.  With certain protocols, it may be safer for these athletes to be playing football, governed by team rules and spending a great deal of their time in a highly controlled and structured environment, rather than to not be playing football and spending more time in an uncontrolled environment...

 

If Covid was caused by football, then you have a very different conversation.

 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Sorry knapp but this is a way bad application of the percentages and bad math.

 

.121% (.00121) of all Covid deaths occur in the 15-24 yo age group. That’s just a percentage of the deaths, not the population. The 15-24 yo age demographic in this country is roughly 40M. So 125 deaths out of 40,000,000 = .000003125 or .0003125%. If we apply that to 150 players on our team we get .000468 deaths or about 1 death per every 320,000 persons in that age group. Odds are pretty fair that no CFB football player would die, and excellent odds that none of our players would die.
 

So we would not likely have 1 or 2 deaths.  Otherwise we’re in agreement.

 

I think you've been around this site long enough to know that I am very bad at math. So no argument here. :lol:

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, 307husker said:

But you can avoid football altogether.  There is no fundamental need for football, yet we justify a pretty significant risk, mostly for entertainment value.

I haven't figured out how to avoid breathing, so I have to accept the risk and do what I can to mitigate it. 

 

It's not like playing football is the only place to contract Covid.   We're all pretty likely to be exposed to Covid-19, whether we play football or not.  With certain protocols, it may be safer for these athletes to be playing football, governed by team rules and spending a great deal of their time in a highly controlled and structured environment, rather than to not be playing football and spending more time in an uncontrolled environment...

 

If Covid was caused by football, then you have a very different conversation.

 

 

If a player follows social distancing guidelines, wears masks, takes online classes, and DOES NOT PLAY FOOTBALL they are significantly less likely to contract COVID-19. I don't understand how this concept is so hard to understand.

 

If we don't have this under control by the start of the season, we just shouldn't play. Period, end of story. 

 

Our desire for entertainment shouldn't trump the health and safety of players, and before we ask them to sacrifice we should be willing to sacrifice for their benefit.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Branno said:

 

If a player follows social distancing guidelines, wears masks, takes online classes, and DOES NOT PLAY FOOTBALL they are significantly less likely to contract COVID-19. I don't understand how this concept is so hard to understand.

 


Says who?  Based on what?

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, 307husker said:

 

Youth sports = Major College Division 1 Programs?

 

I found the pedant!

 

Are you seriously suggesting that the virus gives 2 s#!ts about whether the sports being played are youth or college? Or that simply the level of competition changes how it spreads. 

 

Please, enlighten me, on how playing sports is safer than staying at home. I'm all f#&%ing ears.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

I think you've been around this site long enough to know that I am very bad at math. So no argument here. :lol:


Well, to be fair, my calculations are a little suspect too. I applied the percentage to the whole population age demographic as of that chart in June sometime. Every single age group death since that snapshot in tIme would effectively increase the percentage chance of death for the group. But we’re a long ways away from 1 or 2 deaths being remotely likely.

Share this post


Link to post

College football is probably the most difficult sport to be able to pull this off.  No doubt about that, but with enough $ on the line, maybe they'll come up with a solution.  I would bet my dollar on NOT having college FB this year.

 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Branno said:

 

I found the pedant!

 

Are you seriously suggesting that the virus gives 2 s#!ts about whether the sports being played are youth or college? Or that simply the level of competition changes how it spreads. 

 

Please, enlighten me, on how playing sports is safer than staying at home. I'm all f#&%ing ears.

 

Of course it isn't.  I didn't say that.  Don't be dense.

I didn't say any of those things.

 

Major college football, a multi billion dollar industry, has certain resources and the ability to control, test, and trace at an incredibly different level than any youth sports league in the country.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, 307husker said:

 

Of course it isn't.  I didn't say that.  Don't be dense.

I didn't say any of those things.

 

Major college football, a multi billion dollar industry, has certain resources and the ability to control, test, and trace at an incredibly different level than any youth sports league in the country.  

 

 

And how exactly does that make it safer to play football than staying home?

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, Branno said:

 

That's a bad argument to make and you know it. In fact,  it's the definition of the logical fallacy of equivocation.

 

There are things we can't avoid in football, for example contact, without it becoming soccer. You just accept the risk and do whatever you can to mitigate it. 

But, you can avoid COVID-19 related issues. To suggest we can't, is nonsense.

Nope.

7 minutes ago, Branno said:

 

And how exactly does that make it safer to play football than staying home?

Wait...do you think that if they are not playing football that they are just going to "stay home".

 

You don't really think that, do you?

 

This is the first problem.  People need to stop operating with this weird idea that if they don't play games...that they are going to sit inside with their doors locked.  Not happening.  Not at all.

  • Plus1 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...