• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

The 2020 College Football Season

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Powair7s said:
This still doesn't explain how non athletes are somehow not given the same thought.
Click to expand...

Again, logically they should be treated equivalently.

In risk/reward litigation land, logic isn't the guiding force.

Jimmy the undergrad attends classes with others and somehow dies from it, the school can say they tried and look at all the kids who didn't die from it. Plus Jimmy the undergrad isn't going to make the national news.

Hesiman candidate and potential first round NFL draft pick Justin Fields gets it and dies then you are going to likely get destroyed in the national press and the door is open for the family to say "they made him play/weren't safe." Doesn't matter if it's true or not, the door is open.

That open door is what they are afraid of imo. I know it's what a lot of big businesses I deal with are afraid of.
 
Upvote 0
DaddyBigBucks said:
There’s a great deal of fear mongering going on with respect to this virus; a butt ton of speculation regarding long term effects. In most of the cases (at least) the speculation assumes that this virus’ long term effects are vastly different than any similar virus. That’s fine, they’re entitled to make whatever assumptions they like, and yes, this virus IS different than similar viruses in some ways. But there is not currently a reasonable reason to believe that any of these differences will have long term effects that are vastly different for young, healthy people.

is it possible? Sure

it’s also possible that a car will veer onto the sidewalk and mow you down; better stay inside (or sit tf down as Cie Grant would put it)
Click to expand...
Five months after the outbreak started in this country, it seems clear that rule #1 of COVID-19 is there are no rules. There seems to be a lot of rationalizing about the risk to other parents' kids with little or no evidence.
"in Sacramento County, the 20-29 age group has emerged as the most infected group, followed by those in their 30's. And in some instances, those cases have been life-threatening." https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article244533562.html

I'm not saying the season should be canceled. But if it is canceled it shouldn't be too hard to find another way to occupy ourselves for 3.5 hours for 10 Saturdays...

And I think we'll all benefit by being more open to understanding the situation.
 
Upvote 0
This also goes in the paying players thread (posting there after here). I've suspected this is also a big consideration after the PAC-12 thing happened. There are undertones to the issue even if you leave out the direct compensation and whatnot in trying to keep a season happening. And yes, I know, Matt Hayes, big grain of salt.

 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeNation27 said:
eh. if you choose to play football, you are taking on the violent football risks. if you tear an ACL, your family isn't going to catch torn ACL from being around you later.
Click to expand...
You likely won't believe this, but I was about to post something similar, in that while a player is far more likely to get injured than catch COVID injuries aren't contagious.

On the other side of the coin, not only are players unlikely to catch COVID if all precautions are followed, since virtually all players live away from family and since fans (for now) aren't allowed to attend, any players who do happen to catch COVID would be unlikely to spread it.
 
Upvote 0
MGMT said:
Sorry but I think the argument that football carries greater risk is absolutely fucking stupid.
Click to expand...

I think this statement might be more vague than you realize, but I'm going to respond to it making certain assumptions about the meaning and you can tell me if those assumptions are wrong.

The way risk is handled in most industries, including flight control systems, medical devices, and drugs, is by considering both the severity of the harm done when the risk is realized AND the probability of the risk. Forget industries; this is pretty much the way people treat risk in general. So something that carries a 0.01% chance of death is something people are more likely to risk than something that carries 50% chance of a broken arm.

Analyzed in that way, Coronavirus is not the biggest risk to division 1 athletes playing football, and it's not particularly close. If you look at it from a "severity only" perspective, which is all many in the media seem to be capable of, then obviously anything that can kill you wins. But if you include likelihood in the calculation, which literally everyone does in their daily lives, then there are many risks that, though non-lethal, are still more likely to alter behavior than a small risk of death.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
You likely won't believe this, but I was about to post something similar, in that while a player is far more likely to get injured than catch COVID injuries aren't contagious.

On the other side of the coin, not only are players unlikely to catch COVID if all precautions are followed, since virtually all players live away from family and since fans (for now) aren't allowed to attend, any players who do happen to catch COVID would be unlikely to spread it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Other sports have figured out ways to sequester the players. Doing so is a requirement for having a season.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top