(08-19-2020 11:42 AM)JRsec 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.

That's why University Presidents who have said if we can't have classes in person we won't have football have been pushing a phony narrative from Day 1. Almost every university has a core curriculum taken by Freshmen and Sophomores. Teach that online only and you not only remove the worst offenders of the social constraints from the campus, but you can have an unlimited enrollment of those two class groupings since space and classroom size are no longer constraints. This means the schools make up more revenue, increase class space for Juniors and Seniors who are working on majors and minors and increase space for graduate students and research.

This makes financial, logistical, and quarantine sense. But no, the presidents refuse to set up a win win scenario at many of these schools proving that either they have their head firmly inside a small box of thinking or are trying to make some other kind of statement alien to the function of the school.

In either event the ability of the student athletes in a pandemic to utilize athletic only dorms, with tutors to help with scheduling and maintaining academic endeavors should not be impacted by whether Freshmen and Sophomores are on campus or not and the upper classmen of the undergraduate are a smaller % at every school and more mature, and likely don't pose the risk as those in their first 2 years.

If they had came out with that plan how many freshman do you think would take their English 101 course online through the University they wanted to go to as opposed to the local community college for a 3rd the pricetag? That's why they all "planned" to be in person this fall. 'Ol bait and switch.

(08-19-2020 03:23 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:42 AM)JRsec 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.

That's why University Presidents who have said if we can't have classes in person we won't have football have been pushing a phony narrative from Day 1. Almost every university has a core curriculum taken by Freshmen and Sophomores. Teach that online only and you not only remove the worst offenders of the social constraints from the campus, but you can have an unlimited enrollment of those two class groupings since space and classroom size are no longer constraints. This means the schools make up more revenue, increase class space for Juniors and Seniors who are working on majors and minors and increase space for graduate students and research.

This makes financial, logistical, and quarantine sense. But no, the presidents refuse to set up a win win scenario at many of these schools proving that either they have their head firmly inside a small box of thinking or are trying to make some other kind of statement alien to the function of the school.

In either event the ability of the student athletes in a pandemic to utilize athletic only dorms, with tutors to help with scheduling and maintaining academic endeavors should not be impacted by whether Freshmen and Sophomores are on campus or not and the upper classmen of the undergraduate are a smaller % at every school and more mature, and likely don't pose the risk as those in their first 2 years.

If they had came out with that plan how many freshman do you think would take their English 101 course online through the University they wanted to go to as opposed to the local community college for a 3rd the pricetag? That's why they all "planned" to be in person this fall. 'Ol bait and switch.

Except, this way the state doesn't have to invest so much in the online distribution systems and the classes transfer anywhere. All you have to do is to price them competitively. It also increases the identification with the main state schools while at the same time providing many more juniors and seniors for smaller state schools. We call it a state system but it has never really functioned that way and this is merely one more step into taking it there. Some disciplines beyond core curriculum could easily be specified to the smaller state schools insuring them a place as the inevitable downsizing of higher education begins in earnest.

(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.

Yeah, that's how I interpret the Surgeon General's comments, too.

If you're comparing football practice safety with mixing with other students that went to a party while all drinking beer from the same keg, then sure, playing football looks "safer" than being on-campus by comparison.

I think the fiction that some people are engaging in with arguing that playing football is safer than being on-campus in general is that the players *will* be on-campus. That's just a fact and it's a basic condition to having a football season in the first place (as evidenced by the ND president statement that if students can't be on-campus in general, then there can't be football).

To your point, the NFL (along with the NBA and NHL) all have true bubbles. That simply can't exist for college football because (1) athlete-only dorms aren't allowed, (2) it's inherently a condition that campus be open to the general student population to have football in the first place and (3) the players, coaches, trainers and other staff still need to travel to road games... and that group alone would constitute over 100 people traveling together at a time. When you mix all of that with an inherently high contact sport (e.g. the object of the game is to literally grab, tackle and/or block your opponent with your hands), then that's where you have heightened risk compared to the general student population.

The high likelihood that other students will be reckless and ignore social distancing and mask rules doesn't magically make football safe because those players are also students that can be reckless and ignore social distancing and mask rules just as easily when they're not in practice or at games. We have already seen pro athletes that have millions of dollars at stake can't help themselves with going out. Even the iron fist of Nick Saban can only control so much with college kids.

(08-19-2020 03:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 03:23 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:42 AM)JRsec 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.

That's why University Presidents who have said if we can't have classes in person we won't have football have been pushing a phony narrative from Day 1. Almost every university has a core curriculum taken by Freshmen and Sophomores. Teach that online only and you not only remove the worst offenders of the social constraints from the campus, but you can have an unlimited enrollment of those two class groupings since space and classroom size are no longer constraints. This means the schools make up more revenue, increase class space for Juniors and Seniors who are working on majors and minors and increase space for graduate students and research.

This makes financial, logistical, and quarantine sense. But no, the presidents refuse to set up a win win scenario at many of these schools proving that either they have their head firmly inside a small box of thinking or are trying to make some other kind of statement alien to the function of the school.

In either event the ability of the student athletes in a pandemic to utilize athletic only dorms, with tutors to help with scheduling and maintaining academic endeavors should not be impacted by whether Freshmen and Sophomores are on campus or not and the upper classmen of the undergraduate are a smaller % at every school and more mature, and likely don't pose the risk as those in their first 2 years.

If they had came out with that plan how many freshman do you think would take their English 101 course online through the University they wanted to go to as opposed to the local community college for a 3rd the pricetag? That's why they all "planned" to be in person this fall. 'Ol bait and switch.

Except, this way the state doesn't have to invest so much in the online distribution systems and the classes transfer anywhere. All you have to do is to price them competitively. It also increases the identification with the main state schools while at the same time providing many more juniors and seniors for smaller state schools. We call it a state system but it has never really functioned that way and this is merely one more step into taking it there. Some disciplines beyond core curriculum could easily be specified to the smaller state schools insuring them a place as the inevitable downsizing of higher education begins in earnest.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea if you coordinated it. But it's currently a competition for funds and enrollment. I agree if you priced it correctly the students would choose to take their Gen Ed online at a 4 year University but the school would be losing revenues. As it stands they got everyone on campus with full tuition knowing damn well the odds are good that they'll close within the month.

(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 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 case of covid among athletes is worth shutting down Fall football, there's no evidence that shutting down Fall football will prevent that case.

(08-19-2020 03:40 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 03:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 03:23 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:42 AM)JRsec 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.

That's why University Presidents who have said if we can't have classes in person we won't have football have been pushing a phony narrative from Day 1. Almost every university has a core curriculum taken by Freshmen and Sophomores. Teach that online only and you not only remove the worst offenders of the social constraints from the campus, but you can have an unlimited enrollment of those two class groupings since space and classroom size are no longer constraints. This means the schools make up more revenue, increase class space for Juniors and Seniors who are working on majors and minors and increase space for graduate students and research.

This makes financial, logistical, and quarantine sense. But no, the presidents refuse to set up a win win scenario at many of these schools proving that either they have their head firmly inside a small box of thinking or are trying to make some other kind of statement alien to the function of the school.

In either event the ability of the student athletes in a pandemic to utilize athletic only dorms, with tutors to help with scheduling and maintaining academic endeavors should not be impacted by whether Freshmen and Sophomores are on campus or not and the upper classmen of the undergraduate are a smaller % at every school and more mature, and likely don't pose the risk as those in their first 2 years.

If they had came out with that plan how many freshman do you think would take their English 101 course online through the University they wanted to go to as opposed to the local community college for a 3rd the pricetag? That's why they all "planned" to be in person this fall. 'Ol bait and switch.

Except, this way the state doesn't have to invest so much in the online distribution systems and the classes transfer anywhere. All you have to do is to price them competitively. It also increases the identification with the main state schools while at the same time providing many more juniors and seniors for smaller state schools. We call it a state system but it has never really functioned that way and this is merely one more step into taking it there. Some disciplines beyond core curriculum could easily be specified to the smaller state schools insuring them a place as the inevitable downsizing of higher education begins in earnest.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea if you coordinated it. But it's currently a competition for funds and enrollment. I agree if you priced it correctly the students would choose to take their Gen Ed online at a 4 year University but the school would be losing revenues. As it stands they got everyone on campus with full tuition knowing damn well the odds are good that they'll close within the month.

We aren't at crossed purposes here. Just some basic points to ponder.
1. The state ought to set the price of core curriculum everywhere since the quality of completing this portion of your education isn't appreciably different anywhere.

2. The aim is to reduce the number of students who are likeliest to have reckless behavior. If it is cheaper for the state to do that through online core courses offered from their 1 or 2 top state schools great. The revenue can come into those schools and greater campus space can be designated for the Junior, Senior and graduate levels including more research which is better for the profile of the school.

3. An intentional tasking of all state schools helps to utilize class space more efficiently as well.

4. All state schools increase their on campus space for Juniors, Seniors and Graduate students. This floats all boats and cuts out a lot of the nonsense that goes on in the first two years and saves parents significantly on undergraduate expense.

5. It sets up well for kids leaving high school to get a local job to supplement their first two years from home. A little practical experience can only inform the importance of college and they still have some free time.

6. Doing this now while the justification is in place for it will help to further a trend that is coming anyway. And it allows the state time to evaluate and tweak the system to sustain what it offers without willy nilly cuts decided by politicians.

7. Specialization of campus sites helps states to attract leaders in those fields to those schools. You aren't as apt to have departments that feel like redheaded stepchildren in the Big Campus lineup. If your goal is education then it permits premier people in that field to be at the top of the priority list at the appropriate school rather than way under STEM courses at large state U.

All of this means less waste through duplication, more space, stronger emphasis in more fields of endeavor, and a clearer path toward graduation than what we have now.

Most large state universities are like a shopping mall full of corporate brand offerings, and not specialty shops which excel in nuanced skill sets.

The internet, streaming, and home delivery have killed the malls. The old mall locations need to specialize and simplify their function and learn how to better utilize their space. One size no longer fits all, and boutique education is here whether the old guard academics like it or not.

There will remain a place for the campus experience, but depending the individual student's aspirations that may or may not be at big state U.

But before we shutter a bunch of smaller schools we might first want to consider how they best can be utilized before we abandon specialization for the failed mall model. COVID can be the impetus for moving more naturally into a healthier and more efficient means of higher education.

So in this regard athletes are essentially taking online courses for the first two years though affiliated by grant and aid to the school. But I can even see the nature of that changing over time as well. Perhaps athletes won't sign an grant and aid in their first two years but rather the coaches would go to a training camp for incoming freshmen and affiliations for the first two years become voluntary with grant and aids coming for the Junior and Senior years. Eliminate the transfer portal altogether and allow the athletes to choose where they play in years 1 and 2.

(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.

The dilemma is that football IS objectively higher risk compared to the "reasonable person" standard of wearing masks, social distancing, not gathering in large groups and avoiding non-essential travel:

(1) The entire object of the game is to use your hands to tackle/block/physically push other people (unlike, say, baseball) with constant high energy sprints and bursts of energy.

(2) A football game, even without fans in the stands, inherently requires a large group gathering of over 100 people for each team (or over 200 people on the field at any given time). Even if the game itself is outdoors, how teams handle a locker room for that large of a group of people is a vexing problem. This is also a difference compared to basketball (which can involve a lot of indoor physical contact, but doesn't require huge group gatherings).

(3) That large group of people by simple math is going to have exponentially more contacts with a lot more people and, from a practical on-the-ground perspective, will be a lot more difficult to control. This is another difference compared to basketball (where the smaller team and staff can be monitored much more easily). The universe of potential virus exposures is many times more with a football team even under the best of circumstances.

(4) That large group of people will also need to travel together. This will create a challenge for them to socially distance themselves on a plane, bus or other mode of transportation. This large group of people will then come into contact with another large group of people as opponents, bringing all of their own exposures with them. They will all then travel back to their own respective campuses and intermingle with their student populations.

Whatever safety standards that are considered to be reasonable right now (e.g. social distancing, wearing masks, no large groups, no travel, etc.), playing football clearly falls outside of those standards. So, the risk of transmission of COVID-19 is increased by playing football compared to the standards that have been publicized by public health officials.

Now, is playing football safer than going to a campus party where everyone is drinking out of the same keg? Probably. However, the college isn't sponsoring that party, whereas it IS sponsoring football and all of the associated responsibilities and liabilities that come with it.

Is all of that risk acceptable compared to the revenue and other jobs that football would otherwise generate? Well, that's for each school to decide. While it's certainly comparable to the notion of colleges bringing back students on-campus overall (as I've noted myself that there's a lot of room and board revenue at stake), the point is that the colleges are at least superficially imposing guidelines on those students comparable to public health recommendations. Those colleges might be completely awful at enforcing those guidelines in reality, but they would at least have the colorable argument that they can't control the activities of those students once they step outside of their dorm rooms or go to a location that's off-campus.

In contrast, the sponsorship of football and the enforcement of guidelines during practices and games are 100% under the control of the university. That's the huge difference that I see here compared to the lack of control that a school has over whether their students will go to parties. From a liability standpoint, a college can explain away that a student living in a dorm got COVID-19 because he/she didn't follow the guidelines when he/she went to an off-campus party, whereas it can't explain away an outbreak on a football team when it's a sponsored activity that inherently involves physically tackling each other in a large group while traveling to different campuses.

(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.

(08-19-2020 03:23 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:42 AM)JRsec 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.

That's why University Presidents who have said if we can't have classes in person we won't have football have been pushing a phony narrative from Day 1. Almost every university has a core curriculum taken by Freshmen and Sophomores. Teach that online only and you not only remove the worst offenders of the social constraints from the campus, but you can have an unlimited enrollment of those two class groupings since space and classroom size are no longer constraints. This means the schools make up more revenue, increase class space for Juniors and Seniors who are working on majors and minors and increase space for graduate students and research.

This makes financial, logistical, and quarantine sense. But no, the presidents refuse to set up a win win scenario at many of these schools proving that either they have their head firmly inside a small box of thinking or are trying to make some other kind of statement alien to the function of the school.

In either event the ability of the student athletes in a pandemic to utilize athletic only dorms, with tutors to help with scheduling and maintaining academic endeavors should not be impacted by whether Freshmen and Sophomores are on campus or not and the upper classmen of the undergraduate are a smaller % at every school and more mature, and likely don't pose the risk as those in their first 2 years.

If they had came out with that plan how many freshman do you think would take their English 101 course online through the University they wanted to go to as opposed to the local community college for a 3rd the pricetag? That's why they all "planned" to be in person this fall. 'Ol bait and switch.

This is very true. They had to get them registered and on campus. Once there, if they had to go "virtual" for a while that would be ok. I imagine most students would stay on campus and just do their classes from their dorm/apartment.

(08-19-2020 04:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Whatever safety standards that are considered to be reasonable right now (e.g. social distancing, wearing masks, no large groups, no travel, etc.), playing football clearly falls outside of those standards. So, the risk of transmission of COVID-19 is increased by playing football compared to the standards that have been publicized by public health officials.

I bow to your lawyerly knowledge about legal risk, and if your argument is strictly that the B1G and others who have canceled football have done so on the basis of liability costs and risks as advised by their attorneys, balanced against costs of not playing football, I have no argument with that. If my attorney advises me not to do something, I'm listening.

My argument is with those who are not invoking a legal argument but rather are saying - and there are many here who are - that the B1G and PAC are motivated by a desire to, and in fact are doing, the "right thing" in a well-being or moral sense. I've seen many posts here, and posts in the media, saying that canceling football is the right thing to do. Meaning in the sense that (a) canceling football will in scientific fact reduce virus spread compared to not canceling football (we don't know that), or (b) even if canceling football does reduce virus spread, this benefit is worth the costs of not having football or on-campus classes (I don't believe it is).

FWIW, I think your view, while arguably cynical (canceling for legal reasons not "do the right thing" reasons), is also arguably correct. The evidence is that most of the B1G and PAC schools that have totally canceled athletics have also still opened their campuses to significant amounts of students, when those "regular' on campus students are probably, due to sheer numbers, a much greater *scientific* threat to spread the virus than playing football is. That suggests a monetary/legal motive (lawyers say football revenue is less than football virus lawsuit risk, but students on campus revenue is greater than students on campus virus lawsuit risk).

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.

(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.

Good points. No bones about it, this is a msm driven “zero risks allowed” agenda which has caused the canceling of college sports. I bet you a nickel all the teams would still be playing if this new virus had hit us in 2019 or 2021.

Funny how people can manipulate data to fit their agenda.

Georgia St QB out for the season with a heart condition from COVID-19.

This is something DavidSt has been warning us about. I'll make sure to listen to him more.

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.

(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.

Tour de Force.

(08-20-2020 09:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 04:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Whatever safety standards that are considered to be reasonable right now (e.g. social distancing, wearing masks, no large groups, no travel, etc.), playing football clearly falls outside of those standards. So, the risk of transmission of COVID-19 is increased by playing football compared to the standards that have been publicized by public health officials.

I bow to your lawyerly knowledge about legal risk, and if your argument is strictly that the B1G and others who have canceled football have done so on the basis of liability costs and risks as advised by their attorneys, balanced against costs of not playing football, I have no argument with that. If my attorney advises me not to do something, I'm listening.

My argument is with those who are not invoking a legal argument but rather are saying - and there are many here who are - that the B1G and PAC are motivated by a desire to, and in fact are doing, the "right thing" in a well-being or moral sense. I've seen many posts here, and posts in the media, saying that canceling football is the right thing to do. Meaning in the sense that (a) canceling football will in scientific fact reduce virus spread compared to not canceling football (we don't know that), or (b) even if canceling football does reduce virus spread, this benefit is worth the costs of not having football or on-campus classes (I don't believe it is).

FWIW, I think your view, while arguably cynical (canceling for legal reasons not "do the right thing" reasons), is also arguably correct. The evidence is that most of the B1G and PAC schools that have totally canceled athletics have also still opened their campuses to significant amounts of students, when those "regular' on campus students are probably, due to sheer numbers, a much greater *scientific* threat to spread the virus than playing football is. That suggests a monetary/legal motive (lawyers say football revenue is less than football virus lawsuit risk, but students on campus revenue is greater than students on campus virus lawsuit risk).

All lawyers are cynical.

It is an occupational byproduct of seeing the bad side of people (crimes, domestic abuse, intentional acts causing damage to others, corporate abuses, breaches of contracts, gross negligence, etc...) on a daily basis.

Ony adoption lawyers get to work on things that are uplifting or positive. Sometimes that is even tainted by things like convicted murderer fathers objecting to the adoption so that they can get out of jail for the hearing (its a nice ride, they say).

Most lawyers usually deal with the aftermath of human feckery. :)

I don't miss it at all.

(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.

(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.

(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.

Been there, done that. Both on personal health insurance and business insurance.

The model is spreading to all coverages. Deny, deny, deny. Lose paperwork. Deny, deny, deny. Pay wrong. Try to wait out the claimant.