(08-20-2020 11:20 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  Funny how people can manipulate data to fit their agenda.

Not as funny as you claiming the people who want to play football are fear mongers when you and your fellow covid hype men are the biggest fear mongers there are. Your lack of self-awareness is astounding.

https://footballscoop.com/news/is-the-co...s-said-no/

“Is the concern of myocarditis a reason to cancel the season?” All the cardiologists said, “No.”

(08-21-2020 07:41 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://footballscoop.com/news/is-the-co...s-said-no/

“Is the concern of myocarditis a reason to cancel the season?” All the cardiologists said, “No.”

But an athlete with a heart issue makes a great scare-story for the covid hype men.

(08-21-2020 07:41 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://footballscoop.com/news/is-the-co...s-said-no/

“Is the concern of myocarditis a reason to cancel the season?” All the cardiologists said, “No.”

David will be along shortly to tell us these cardiologists are all quacks.

I get the feeling at least some of the people who are adamant about ending the football season don't care what experts and statistics say. To them the system of college athletics is exploitative and they want to see it burn for a year for their own satisfaction, even if it means athletes are less safe and the lower-earning personnel in athletics get furloughed or laid off.

(08-21-2020 07:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 07:41 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  https://footballscoop.com/news/is-the-co...s-said-no/

“Is the concern of myocarditis a reason to cancel the season?” All the cardiologists said, “No.”

But an athlete with a heart issue makes a great scare-story for the covid hype men.

It's a scary proposition. Without monitoring it could potentially be deadly. With the right protocols then they truly are likely safer than the general public. Schools understand the risks now and will be monitoring and many athletes that test positive will likely have to sit out longer than the 2 weeks or whatever it is due to heart issues. If normal joe schmo gets covid, a mild case lets say and starts feeling better and starts doing intensive workouts he could unknowingly be putting himself in danger of permanent heart issues or death.

(08-20-2020 04:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 02:53 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 09:53 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The liability and risk conversation due to COVID, on behalf of college presidents and universities, is fascinating to me.

Per year, 1,825 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die from alcohol-related unintentional injuries, including motor-vehicle crashes. 696,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are assaulted by another student who has been drinking. 97,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 report experiencing alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape. Roughly 20 percent of college students meet the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder.

How many schools have shut themselves down due these on-going and prevalent risks (the answer is, of course, zero)? There have been, and remain, serious risks from alcohol to the college population (and, the threat of death and/or negative effect/impact remains significantly higher). We have somehow determined that the risk of COVID has superseded all other risks and liabilities that were already higher and very well known - despite COVID health risk to these age groups being dramatically lower than that of alcohol-related abuse and consequence.

https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/b...0drinking.

With regards to football, what about the risk and threat to CTE? It was discovered a few years ago that 99% of NFL players' brains surveyed had CTE. CTE has been discovered in players as young as in high school. How many football programs, at the professional and collegiate levels, have shut down to liability and risk of COVID (again, zero)?

Schools making decisions based on liability is an unquestioned fact. However, let's not kid ourselves that they still selectively choose which ones are relevant. From the data alone, there are more serious risks that create more liability than COVID alone.

One issue (and I don't know the answer since I retired right before Covid hit) is whether insurance policies will cover or exclude coverage for Covid.

It did not exist before, so I am unsure if insurance companies are excluding Covid coverage or making insureds pay out of the ass for it. (I assume at least the latter).

Its always easier to deal with liability issues if you have adequate liability insurance that covers the loss versus digging into your own piggy bank for the cash.

It's an excellent question. From what I've seen, this is going to be the subject of litigation for years and, as a general matter, insurance companies are fighting virtually every payout tooth and nail. Common litigation questions are whether pandemics are covered by force majeure clauses, at what point did this particular pandemic go from an unforeseeable event to a known event, whether closing a business due to the pandemic triggers business interruption insurance in the same manner as a natural disaster, etc. The number of lawsuits between all types of business and their respective insurers is going to be insane (and it's already starting).

If there's one area where I'm VERY cynical, it's dealing with insurance companies.

I work in Risk and Insurance for a large health system. The insurance market has hardened. Insurance premiums are going up and insurers are reducing the capacity of risk they are willing to take on. Truth be told we were on the brink of a hard market before COVID hit, but this thing has amplified it.

(08-21-2020 08:57 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I get the feeling at least some of the people who are adamant about ending the football season don't care what experts and statistics say. To them the system of college athletics is exploitative and they want to see it burn for a year for their own satisfaction, even if it means athletes are less safe and the lower-earning personnel in athletics get furloughed or laid off.

I don't want to see it fail but I think it's going to. I do believe they are likely safer though it might increase community spread with the travel and what not but the players themselves are safer. But you're still going to have cases and clusters and those players at least will have to isolate others may have to quarantine. There will be games cancelled because teams can't safely field a team anymore. If the US continues the downward trend of cases through the fall then it might workout but I predict just like the flu and colds that transmissions will be higher and numbers will jump again. Thus I have no problem with ODU's decision to not play but I do hope the athletes are still receiving screenings and care. I don't have a crystal ball anymore than anyone else and don't envy any college administrator making these decisions. If the games are on, I'll watch.

(08-20-2020 04:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 02:53 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 09:53 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The liability and risk conversation due to COVID, on behalf of college presidents and universities, is fascinating to me.

Per year, 1,825 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die from alcohol-related unintentional injuries, including motor-vehicle crashes. 696,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are assaulted by another student who has been drinking. 97,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 report experiencing alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape. Roughly 20 percent of college students meet the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder.

How many schools have shut themselves down due these on-going and prevalent risks (the answer is, of course, zero)? There have been, and remain, serious risks from alcohol to the college population (and, the threat of death and/or negative effect/impact remains significantly higher). We have somehow determined that the risk of COVID has superseded all other risks and liabilities that were already higher and very well known - despite COVID health risk to these age groups being dramatically lower than that of alcohol-related abuse and consequence.

https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/b...0drinking.

With regards to football, what about the risk and threat to CTE? It was discovered a few years ago that 99% of NFL players' brains surveyed had CTE. CTE has been discovered in players as young as in high school. How many football programs, at the professional and collegiate levels, have shut down to liability and risk of COVID (again, zero)?

Schools making decisions based on liability is an unquestioned fact. However, let's not kid ourselves that they still selectively choose which ones are relevant. From the data alone, there are more serious risks that create more liability than COVID alone.

One issue (and I don't know the answer since I retired right before Covid hit) is whether insurance policies will cover or exclude coverage for Covid.

It did not exist before, so I am unsure if insurance companies are excluding Covid coverage or making insureds pay out of the ass for it. (I assume at least the latter).

Its always easier to deal with liability issues if you have adequate liability insurance that covers the loss versus digging into your own piggy bank for the cash.

It's an excellent question. From what I've seen, this is going to be the subject of litigation for years and, as a general matter, insurance companies are fighting virtually every payout tooth and nail. Common litigation questions are whether pandemics are covered by force majeure clauses, at what point did this particular pandemic go from an unforeseeable event to a known event, whether closing a business due to the pandemic triggers business interruption insurance in the same manner as a natural disaster, etc. The number of lawsuits between all types of business and their respective insurers is going to be insane (and it's already starting).

If there's one area where I'm VERY cynical, it's dealing with insurance companies.

It depends on the policy.

My parents' HOA (which runs their neighborhood pool) found out their policy does not cover COVID.

A board my wife is on found out their policy does cover COVID, as long as the gathering is lower than the state limit (currently 50 people). Oddly enough, a lot of people on that board are married to insurance professionals.

(08-20-2020 12:10 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  One player got the covids? That's it, cancel the season, I'm now convinced.

Send them home or just let them to team workouts, practice all Fall semester with no strict testing protocol.

This shows how you and others who wants football this fall. You care more about the sport, and do not give a damn about the health and well being of the players. This is not just one player. There are now more than a dozen players with this heart condition caused by this virus, and most are from the Big 10.

(08-21-2020 09:29 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 04:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 02:53 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 09:53 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The liability and risk conversation due to COVID, on behalf of college presidents and universities, is fascinating to me.

Per year, 1,825 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die from alcohol-related unintentional injuries, including motor-vehicle crashes. 696,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are assaulted by another student who has been drinking. 97,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 report experiencing alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape. Roughly 20 percent of college students meet the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder.

How many schools have shut themselves down due these on-going and prevalent risks (the answer is, of course, zero)? There have been, and remain, serious risks from alcohol to the college population (and, the threat of death and/or negative effect/impact remains significantly higher). We have somehow determined that the risk of COVID has superseded all other risks and liabilities that were already higher and very well known - despite COVID health risk to these age groups being dramatically lower than that of alcohol-related abuse and consequence.

https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/b...0drinking.

With regards to football, what about the risk and threat to CTE? It was discovered a few years ago that 99% of NFL players' brains surveyed had CTE. CTE has been discovered in players as young as in high school. How many football programs, at the professional and collegiate levels, have shut down to liability and risk of COVID (again, zero)?

Schools making decisions based on liability is an unquestioned fact. However, let's not kid ourselves that they still selectively choose which ones are relevant. From the data alone, there are more serious risks that create more liability than COVID alone.

One issue (and I don't know the answer since I retired right before Covid hit) is whether insurance policies will cover or exclude coverage for Covid.

It did not exist before, so I am unsure if insurance companies are excluding Covid coverage or making insureds pay out of the ass for it. (I assume at least the latter).

Its always easier to deal with liability issues if you have adequate liability insurance that covers the loss versus digging into your own piggy bank for the cash.

It's an excellent question. From what I've seen, this is going to be the subject of litigation for years and, as a general matter, insurance companies are fighting virtually every payout tooth and nail. Common litigation questions are whether pandemics are covered by force majeure clauses, at what point did this particular pandemic go from an unforeseeable event to a known event, whether closing a business due to the pandemic triggers business interruption insurance in the same manner as a natural disaster, etc. The number of lawsuits between all types of business and their respective insurers is going to be insane (and it's already starting).

If there's one area where I'm VERY cynical, it's dealing with insurance companies.

It depends on the policy.

My parents' HOA (which runs their neighborhood pool) found out their policy does not cover COVID.

A board my wife is on found out their policy does cover COVID, as long as the gathering is lower than the state limit (currently 50 people). Oddly enough, a lot of people on that board are married to insurance professionals.

Yeah most GL (General Liability) policies have a communicable disease exclusion that existed pre-Covid. The insurer would even take the position they do not have a duty to defend a lawsuit, and the HOA would be stick out of pocket to pay for the defense of any of these cases, not to mention any indemnity that may result. Even the plaintiff is screed in these scenarios as they will never collect. This is one of the reasons why politicians on the right have been championing a waiver of liability.

(08-21-2020 09:41 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 12:10 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  One player got the covids? That's it, cancel the season, I'm now convinced.

Send them home or just let them to team workouts, practice all Fall semester with no strict testing protocol.

This shows how you and others who wants football this fall. You care more about the sport, and do not give a damn about the health and well being of the players. This is not just one player. There are now more than a dozen players with this heart condition caused by this virus, and most are from the Big 10.

Respectfully, I think it is much deeper and more complicated than that.

Every state, every college, every campus, every student body is different. However, by taking away college sports (like football for example) for the student-athletes - and completely disregarding the wants and needs of the fans - is that truly the best decision, for health purposes? By taking away structured athletic activities, activities that could be held under respective state guidelines and proper health protocols, we are removing outlets for young adults to not only socialize safely, but also engage in healthy athletic participation that allows for physical health and well-being too. You, David, have made repeated notes of obese football players being at-risk. What if, by taking away these structured activities, more football players (because they are not eating properly under program-given nutrition guidelines or stop working out more by being remote) do, in fact, become obese (and leading to more risk of COVID)? In addition, by taking away these structured activities (like football), what will young adults, like those in college, turn to? They could turn to more drinking, more involvement with drugs, more partying and more unstructured and unsafe gatherings that would not have been overseen by a college/university athletic department. And that does not even cover the access these student-athletes could have in-terms of on-campus health resources (physical and-or mental well-being).

For all of these decisions being made in the name of student-athlete safety, I question whether or not the potential unintended consequences could be, possibly, more severe. I genuinely fear for the younger population today, especially since 1 in 4 has considered harming them self since the start of the pandemic. For all the decisions being made to "protect" people during the pandemic, very few have considered the long-term consequences of ignoring the physical and mental health component (especially in the young adult population).

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/13...mic-394832

I think there is generalized thought that "If we cancel fall sports, like football, and cancel in-person learning, like at colleges, that all students will then automatically conform to safer habits, like isolating and staying home". I do not think that is accurate or true at all.

(08-21-2020 09:41 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 12:10 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  One player got the covids? That's it, cancel the season, I'm now convinced.

Send them home or just let them to team workouts, practice all Fall semester with no strict testing protocol.

This shows how you and others who wants football this fall. You care more about the sport, and do not give a damn about the health and well being of the players. This is not just one player. There are now more than a dozen players with this heart condition caused by this virus, and most are from the Big 10.

Even if there are a dozen B1G players with heart issues caused by this virus (and you haven't shown that), you haven't shown how they are less likely to get these heart issues if they don't play football and are just mingling all the time with the student population than if they do play football.

(08-20-2020 09:53 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The liability and risk conversation due to COVID, on behalf of college presidents and universities, is fascinating to me.

Per year, 1,825 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die from alcohol-related unintentional injuries, including motor-vehicle crashes. 696,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are assaulted by another student who has been drinking. 97,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 report experiencing alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape. Roughly 20 percent of college students meet the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder.

How many schools have shut themselves down due these on-going and prevalent risks (the answer is, of course, zero)? There have been, and remain, serious risks from alcohol to the college population (and, the threat of death and/or negative effect/impact remains significantly higher). We have somehow determined that the risk of COVID has superseded all other risks and liabilities that were already higher and very well known - despite COVID health risk to these age groups being dramatically lower than that of alcohol-related abuse and consequence.

https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/b...0drinking.

With regards to football, what about the risk and threat to CTE? It was discovered a few years ago that 99% of NFL players' brains surveyed had CTE. CTE has been discovered in players as young as in high school. How many football programs, at the professional and collegiate levels, have shut down to liability and risk of COVID (again, zero)?

Schools making decisions based on liability is an unquestioned fact. However, let's not kid ourselves that they still selectively choose which ones are relevant. From the data alone, there are more serious risks that create more liability than COVID alone.

Universities concern themselves with the things they can control on their campuses. Alcohol or drug related incidents off-campus are out of their control and are not their responsibility. The Federal Drug Free School Act requires regular distribution and review by schools of drug and alcohol prevention policies. There are other federal rules and regulations that cover the rules schools most abide by, including Title IX rules on sexual harassment and assault.

The NCAA Concussion management plan requires that an NCAA concussion fact sheets or other applicable educational materials are annually distributed to student-athletes, coaches, team physicians, athletic trainers, and athletics directors. There should be a signed acknowledgement that all parties have read and understand these concussion facts and their institution’s concussion management plan. The NCAA also paid out $70 million in settlements for medical monitoring of former collegiate student-athletes, and $5 million to medical research. Football rules have been changed to help prevent concussions.

When it comes to Covid-19, the universities are on their own. The University President's asked the federal government for liability protection and got nothing. The CDC recommended, "Testing to diagnose COVID-19 as one component of a comprehensive strategy and should be used in conjunction with promoting behaviors that reduce spread, maintaining healthy environments, maintaining healthy operations, and preparing for when someone gets sick." In other words, good luck, you are going to need it.

At Stanford, this was one line in the liability waiver required of grad students who need to be on-campus for research: “I understand that I am assuming the risk that I may be exposed to or infected by COVID-19 and that such exposure or infection of COVID-19 is inherently dangerous.” At Penn State, students were asked to: “Assume any and all risk of exposure to COVID-19 that may result from attending Penn State.” After student complaints, it was changed to: “Even with the mitigation steps taken by Penn State and my compliance with this Compact, I acknowledge that Penn State cannot prevent the risks of exposure to COVID-19."

This does not look as simple as the alcohol related incidents and CTE. So it is not difficult to understand why a school would hesitate to play college sports. It would have been helpful if the schools had received some liability protection from the government, but they didn't. So schools don't really have a way to protect themselves other than a liability waiver signed by a student or shutting the campus down.

(08-19-2020 08:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 03:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 12:00 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 06:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, it's obvious these guys are safer - or at least no less safe - on the field than in class, and if they are safer than their risk to the community is lower too.

The cancel-football side is engaged in voodoo fear-mongering, IMO.

The reason the NFL can make it work is that they are basically in a bubble with daily testing. All media interviews are done through Zoom. Players go home to their families or girlfriends. Going out into the student population is a lot different and the cost of testing is significant for a university.

As a country, we had six months to contain this virus and we just have not done it. The Surgeon General is applauding all the steps Alabama has taken but he is not exactly saying that football players back on campus with other students is a great idea. I want college football as much as anybody and I thought the Big 10 and PAC-12 gave up too soon. But I can also see that things are not trending well with the virus and I don’t care how well a school does to protect their players from the virus, it will never work with students if their is not a commitment in our country to contain the virus.

What do you mean by "it will never work"? Do you mean that some college athletes will get infected? That will likely happen to whether they are playing football or not.

I agree that the pros have far greater control over the virus via the "bubbles". But the issue isn't whether college athletics can be made as virus-free as the NBA bubble is. It's whether shutting down football (a) reduces the spread of the virus compared to not shutting down football, and (b) even if it does spread the virus more than shutting down football, are the benefits of football in terms of revenues and quality of life for players, fans, students etc. greater than the costs of that greater spread? And don't tell me the latter factors (revenue and QoL) shouldn't count, because they are the reasons the same B1G schools that have canceled football have their campuses open to the general student population.

I have not seen any justification by those that have canceled Fall football in either of those terms. Even if you think that even one additional case of covid is worth shutting down Fall football, there's no evidence that shutting down Fall football will create that extra case.

What I mean is that as long as the country as losing the battle with the virus, it will be difficult to have students on-campus. If you don't have students on-campus, then it is difficult to have fall football. NCAA president Mark Emmert said back in May that, “All of the commissioners and every president that I’ve talked to is in clear agreement: If you don’t have students on campus, you don’t have student-athletes on campus.”

If that is still true, then you need to have students on-campus in the middle of a pandemic to play fall football. If a school plays football, if there are students on-campus and the virus is where it is at today, there is a lot of legal risk that school is taking on. If a school and a conference are willing to take that risk, then go forward. Like I said, I thought the Big 10 and Pac-12 should have held out longer. They could have waited until the Labor Day weekend to make the decision. But I don't see the commitment in this country to do whatever is needed to get through this virus crisis, so postponing the fall season and moving it to the spring may be the right decision.

Emmert's statement (bolded) sounds more like a philosophical argument than a scientific/medical argument. It is simply saying that athletes shouldn't be treated any differently than other students. Let's just set aside the reality that athletes in fact are already, and always have been, treated differently than other students.

Let's also be clear. It isn't playing football itself that puts players at risk. If players are truly safer "on the field", then it would seem to make sense to insure that they stay on the field and not interact with the general public. But we know that's not going to happen.

If we would argue that universities should fully open to in-person classes, we are explicitly arguing that any deaths that result from that policy are an acceptable outcome relative to outcomes that result from some other policy. And the people charged with setting those policies are, unavoidably, acting with imperfect information about a virus about which we still know very little. It is called a "novel" virus for a reason. A few years from now we will have better, if still imperfect, understanding of COVID19. But we can't wait years to make decisions.

As is generally true in all endeavors, sometimes bad decisions have good outcomes, and sometimes good decisions have bad outcomes. So we may never know which decisions were good ones and which were bad ones.

Emmert's is a disingenuous assertion from which only a false and destructive conclusion may be drawn. There are many times when athletes play and school is not in session.

Whatever happened to crises require innovative measures?

Clearly the safest way for athletes to play is by remaining aloof from the main part of the student body. Would this be a permanent measure? No. Would it allow for competition under a preferable set of terms with regard to athlete safety? Yes. Is it perfect? No. But then neither is closing the school and letting everyone have the normal exposure.

As I see it the premise is set up by Emmert to create one possible conclusion instead of looking for creative ways, the mark of intelligence, to handle a unique set of circumstances.

But this has been the way in our country lately. We don't innovate. I had recommended to different people in positions of authority the merit in holding all core curriculum courses for Freshmen and Sophomores online and keeping the campus open for Juniors, Seniors and Graduate students working on majors, minors, research, or degree completion.

Auburn's graduate programs remained open even when the undergraduate was closed out with the first wave of the infection. The rate of spread on campus among these more seriously minded young professionals was well below the state and national average and in each case contraction occurred off campus and containment was successful. Social distancing was practiced in my wife's lab. No infections and no spread and only 1 test and quarantine required due to outside contact.

The high risk behavior is among those free from Mom and Dad for the first time and going ape in the absence of authority. Keep them at home charge a flat rate for internet core courses and open up enrollment with limits for the first two years. After that the school takes the best of the Sophomore class entering their Junior year and the others have hours that transfer to any state university. No hours are lost, no room and board paid, and the extra campus space allows for social distancing and the athletes have their own dorm during the pandemic.

This way the university makes up for lost enrollment and housing with the unlimited online Freshmen and Sophomore classes, and when the Juniors hit campus and the pandemic leaves the new process is in place that saves parents money on the first two years, and enables the schools to take only the top Juniors and utilize more space for graduate students and research.

The schools don't lose athletic revenue unless the bubble becomes untenable. School goes on and young adults learn how to deal with a crisis and accomplish their goals. It's a great life lesson in a hard time. But none of this works with the Freshmen and Sophomores on campus.

University presidents are proving to be too rigid to respond to the new circumstances with new approaches. Yes students need personal contact with instructors, but Freshmen and Sophomores mostly get graduate students and not professors. Core curriculum is really a catch all to bring different high school products up to speed anyway. At least this way a bunch of parents will find out if their kids are serious before they invest 25,000 a year for parties and academic probation.

What pisses me off about this whole discussion are the defeatists before anything is tried and the "paint me in a box" presidents who want a dodge for not having to make a decision. If this is leadership in the U.S. we are hosed! Adapt, innovate and overcome. It's all of our problem and solutions are what's needed not excuses and defeatism.

this