#WeWantToPlay

ESPN put together a solid overview on Sunday night's #WeWantToPlay movement.

DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.

Comments

Trying to think of the worst possible way the NCAA can handle this...

There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city.

Easy. Wait six months, then look back and see what they actually did.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

I keep hearing that this is a schools presidents worst nightmare, player unification, but I hope it helps make change and the players get what they want.

I hate rude behavior in a man. Won't tolerate it.

Meanwhile, school Presidents and league Commissioners are moving the other direction.

#wedontwantyoutoplay

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

Unfortunately the NHL and NBA have shown how you need to operate to safely have sporting events during a pandemic, but there's no way the NCAA will be able to do something like that (too expensive, too big, and forcing unpaid college kids to follow the rules won't work). So your choices basically become: don't play, or play in an unsafe manner.

There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city.

Find me a university President with the backbone to make a decision that is opposite of public perception. That unicorn doesn't exist.

What about all the presidents that plan on re-opening in person classes?

"Go Hokies!" - Thomas Jefferson
@HaydenDubya

He just got put on indefinite leave.

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

I certainly like a unified voice fighting to play more than a unified voice threatening not to.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Its great that they want to play, and I don't doubt for a second that they do.

But unless the science of the situation says its safe to play, there's not much that we can do here, and I haven't seen much at all right now to show that schools have any control over this to the point where even having students on campus is safe, let alone hosting athletic competitions among rival schools.

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

^This. If professional sports can't keep outbreaks from happening within their ranks, how do you expect colleges with 18-22 year old athletes to do it?

If you play it, they will win.

"How the ass pocket will be used, I do not know. Alls I know is, the ass pocket will be used." -The BoD

The only way I've seen professional sports work here is with the bubble. The virus is still running far too rampant and unchecked in the general public to think it could work otherwise. And until we start seeing college sports talk about bubbling up their athletes, I just don't see any way this can happen until there's a vaccine (or hell, even an effective treatment).

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

Right.

And good luck "bubbling up" college age athletes.

If you play it, they will win.

"How the ass pocket will be used, I do not know. Alls I know is, the ass pocket will be used." -The BoD

it's also hard to make the argument that student-athletes are student first if you are taking them out of class in order to put them in a bubble.

This is far and away the biggest reason the "college football bubble" isn't going to happen. Not necessarily because it is impossible, but that it would threaten the very foundation on which the NCAA and its hundreds of member institutions have made billions of dollars on the labor of unpaid amateur athletes.

Why not, if the rest of the students are doing virtual classes?

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

Not all classes have moved online.

I can't wait to see how Clay Travis, Danny Kanell, et al rationalize this. They bit on the pump fake of "we want to play" before the players dropped their demands.

Whatever the response is will be a bunch of made up BS.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Can someone explain to me what makes this list of demands so daunting? Is a player union really that bad for the schools that are on the brink of losing millions? To me, this seems like necessary positive momentum to get the season in a time of overwhelming negativity. Hopefully the NCAA gets their collective head out of their ass and can make it happen.

"Go Hokies!" - Thomas Jefferson
@HaydenDubya

Is a player union really that bad for the schools that are on the brink of losing millions?

In a word, yes.

Look at the history of union busting and you'll see why. Giving any type of negotiating power to the students in this case is antithetical to the business model that the member schools have thrived on. Even if individual members of the leadership at schools support this idea, the historical trend of those with power is to blow the whole thing up before sharing any if possible.

Take a look at the case of the MLB Player's Association, and how it was formed and grew. Great book I read on the subject called Lords of the Realm. Fascinating read, and highly recommended, if you want to get an idea on what CFB players are up against. A lot of what the book talks about paternalistic (team) owners and handouts to keep them happy to prevent unionization are things I see coming in the future of CFB. The only things that I see that works against the players forming an association are (a) their longevity, they only last 4-5 years in cfb, and (b) the existence of the NFL.

In baseball, you had players that were at the top of their game, and had had a history of going through a grind (of varying lengths) in the minors to get there. The latter part may work in the CFB players favor (they're currently going through that grind); that grind, that mentality, what what helped the MLB players stick it out until the MLBPA was recognized across the board.

I think the biggest predictor of whether or not an association of CFB players will get off the ground is if the NFL PA recognizes and assists them. If not, you're going to have players hesitant, fearing that it will impact their chances at making the NFL. If the NFLPA gives them a hand, then it'll be a done deal eventually.

Lords of the Realm (kindle version)

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

Bad for schools but otherwise objectively good

Schools are on the brink of losing millions..... Also, players should unionize so they get paid millions. Makes total sense.

TL;DR - If players can unionize, then they are by legal definition employees. If players are employees, it fundamentally alters the way college sports are (legally) required to operate.

Twitter me

Yep- employees. Taxed, fired for poor performance, replaced by someone better, bound by policies that you can't tweet certain shit, all of it. Also, the women's volleyball team has to be equally employed too- that's the law. How hard do you go condition of employment wise on attending class? Certain GPA's? etc. lol- disater. Will end college athletics outside of the Ivy League

You say these things like people who are taxed and have performance metrics are suddenly willing to stop working rather than deal with them.

The Title IX concerns are real. That will take a lot of work to sort. But having to pay taxes doesn't make me not want to collect a paycheck.

What if paying taxes and employment conditions aren't as desirable or valuable as the current scholarship model?

Less desirable/valuable for whom? The unpaid employee with very little in the way of worker protections, the employer who isn't paying for labor or the fan who benefits from the product at very little personal risk/cost?

At the moment, we can't compare the payment method to the scholarship method because there is no real discussion as to what that would look like. Athletes currently have no basis to judge and universities (via the NCAA) work very hard to keep them in that situation. With no representation, they have no power to find out unless those who are benefiting greatly from the current system allow them to.

edit: Wanted to add, this is a great question. It needs to be asked to move forward.

As any kid that had to pay their way through VT how they feel about "unpaid" athletes getting a full ride. They are paid- handsomely - just not hard cash. A decent apartment in blacksburg will cost a student about 700 bucks a month for a room plus utilities. Nevermind meal plans, other food, books, etc. And before you point out that Joe student doesn't make money for VT, well without Joe student doing real academic research and contributing towards operating costs, there would be no VT. It would be a huge community college. Joe student is just as important to the bottom line and more important to the mission.

How is this different than getting paid in company scrip?

I agree they aren't getting nothing. I'd have loved to not have huge amounts of debt coming out of college. But that doesn't mean they should just accept the status quo and never try to look for something more equitable. The amount of money flying around big time college sports has increased dramatically, but the benefit to the labor force has remained relatively unchanged in that time. It is not unreasonable for them to want better.

We forget that players are not forced by colleges to play. The only real rule keeping them from getting paid is set by the NFL (3 year rule). Of course there are other professional options available but the athletes continue to choose college over those options. I wonder why that is if they are getting nothing in return?

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Whoever said they were getting nothing in return?

Receiving something does not mean that they should be forbidden from wanting more or that what they receive is in any way equitable.

They are voluntarily signing scholarship contracts to play an amateur sport over other options where they could absolutely argue for more compensation. It comes down to being part of a sport that happens to make a lot of money. If they can't come to terms with that, then the logical solution is to seek a higher value opportunity in the professional market. The fact that they can and don't is proof that the system is not against the players as much as some people want to believe.

There are absolutely some things that the NCAA can improve on that does not include outright paying players.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Are there other viable routes to the NFL besides going through college? I can't remember a draft night for the NFL that didn't include a significant majority of players coming from major college teams. You make it sound like these kids are voluntarily signing up for college ball when they have other options. But do they really? If their end goal is to make it to the NFL how else can they get there, realistically, without going through college? You're parroting a narrative that they have a choice because nobody is holding a gun to their head but do they really?

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

They have options and they don't like them. Even so, why does the University model have to change to compensate for what the free market professional model is failing to do?

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

The three year rule is almost definitional of a non-market, anti-competitive system. What we may see come out of this is an actual competitor to college athletics, but the idea that what we've had represents a "free market" in any way, shape, or form misunderstands what a free market actually is. This is the free market operating, right here, in real time.

If a better free market system is the desire, then the focus should be outside of the amateur system. If the XFL, AAFL, Arena Leagues, etc continue to fail and the best path toward a professional career is via college football, I don't see why college football would need to change.

At the core of this, most people are not unhappy with players not being paid, they are unhappy with who is being paid. If the ACC went to ESPN and said you know what, you can cover our games with only minimal overhead charges on our end. Would people be more happy once there is no money to argue over?

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Just a couple of comments: the big reason the XFL, Arena etc continue to fail is the NFL is essentially a sanctioned monopoly. It's akin to why car companies don't just pop up to compete with the existing companies more often, only in professional football, the barriers to entry are deliberately built higher by the NFL in order to preemptively eliminate competition.

"People are not unhappy with players not being paid" - The double negative obfuscates the fact that most people don't really care because it doesn't directly impact them except as their entertainment. Having to think about the real world consequences of your entertainment choices kinda sucks, because then you're thinking, not being entertained.

We live in a capitalist society, which means that people will pay for things of value, and things of great value, like college football, people will pay LOTS of money for. So your hypothetical is nice and all, but the people advocating for taking the money out of college football are generally more likely to be pushing to go back to the TRUE amateur model (no scholarships, players are truly student athletes). The vast majority of people who are advocating for the players getting paid are not mad about the universities making money; they are mad that the universities and NCAA deliberately put in place and defend a system that takes away power and money from the actual laborers who produce the work. There is a place we can get to where revenues are shared between the universities who provide the framework for college football and the players who do the work (and I would say it's work).

My question back to you is this...let's say the players are paid a fair market wage out of the money that athletic departments are already making and there is no impact on you, the consumer/viewer. In that case, are you still opposed to it? If so, why?

My question back to you is this...let's say the players are paid a fair market wage out of the money that athletic departments are already making and there is no impact on you, the consumer/viewer. In that case, are you still opposed to it? If so, why?

I will do my best to describe my personal feelings although they are mixed.

I have no problem with players being able to market themselves. But, if they need to wear their hokie football jersey to be marketable, then the door should swing both ways. I also understand why NCAA has feared this since forever...there is an opportunity for corruption. I do not think it would happen as often or to the extent as people fear though.

I am not against stipends. For all the things the players are provided, they should still have an opportunity to have some cash in their pockets.

If salaries are paid, they must be uniform and probably fall more in line with the stipends above. The value is based on the average football player on the roster. Scholarships are no longer given, the value can be added to the wages so there is no more misunderstanding in value. It would be interesting to consider pros and cons of having out of state players cover the difference in out of state tuition but there are probably trip wires to that.

No other sports are cut. It may seem unfair that football is funding swimming, but that is the nature of an athletic department.

I am not one that will say that I will lose interest in the sport if the players are paid. But I do think there are some lifelong fans that would. I also don't think you gain any new fans because of it, so it would be a true net decrease in revenue (don't know how much).

Above all, It really irritates me when I see people that act as if the students are treated as slaves or servants. It just isn't true. I think the value of just having the opportunity to play college ball and receive a free education is vastly underappreciated. My assumption is that if this does shake out, there will always be complaints that it isn't enough.

My question back to you, what is a fair market wage and who determines that? Who decides how much is too much to spend on a new locker room when it could go to the players instead?

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Hey, thanks for engaging on this. I do like it when we can have civil conversations on these boards. And your points are well taken.

I agree on preserving other sports, and I do not think it is unfair. I think part of the issue arises from the fact that colleges get collected together into conferences to maximize revenue sports and non-revenue sports get drug along. Wouldn't it be cheaper for the field hockey team to play in a conference where they have Roanoke, Richmond, VMI, JMU, etc on the schedule? Minimize travel costs.

The fair market wage is a good question. The smart ass answer is the market determines the wages, but I am not entirely sure that is sustainable in sports, where logic is often tossed out the window and some athletic department is going to go bankrupt bidding on the next Ronald Curry. I think a market only functions when everyone is playing by the same rules, and the only way to enforce that is legitimate regulation and enforcement. So, we're going to have to get rid of the NCAA, first off :o)

I think the best way, honestly, is a broad agreement between some type of player's association and the universities that establishes revenue sharing percentages and that's your boundary. And this doesn't do anything to address the iniquities between the haves and have nots; Bama sharing 30% of their revenue is necessarily different than UConn sharing 30% of their much smaller pie. But that isn't introducing new imbalances, and frankly, I don't think it's going to even make the current situation worse. Bama is gonna compete for national titles, UConn is...not.

I also wonder how we can truly make things "equal"...the cost of a scholarship, room and board, etc at Virginia Tech is significantly cheaper than it is at USCw, so aren't we already compensating the players differently? And when you say the players have to get paid equally, does it really make sense that Trevor Lawrence is receiving the same amount as the guy that gets the last scholarship at UConn? To me, Lawrence is helping draw a ton of eyeballs and should be rewarded for that. That guy at UConn is probably truly in it to get the free ride at UConn and is fine with the minimum he'll get. I agree, bake the cost of the scholarship and everything into the salary, everything else is icing.

Finally, agree that there will always be complaints that it isn't enough. I will ALSO say that once it starts, there will always be complaints that it's too much. I've heard the result of a good negotiation is that everyone is complaining, and really only one side is complaining about the current situation.

Don't worry about Trevor Lawrence. He is a 2%er and will get his, either by the marketing rights or his first NFL contract. The problem if you try to compensate him on his specific value, it will lead to "cuts" on the other end of the spectrum for poor performers. As I have said before, if the goal is to compensate individuals like NFL contracts, the industry needs to supply that opportunity some place other than college sports.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

My view is don't pay the kids - continue with scholarships, but allow the kids to make money off their names on merchandise. The market value would be established by who bought what merchandise.

That's the NFL'S issue to deal with, not college football's. How they are legally allowed to outright block employment of legal adults blows my mind. Honestly I feel like the NFL does a great job laying low and skating in this discussion.

It doesn't really matter whose issue it is. The fact is that the players don't have true options. If they want to play in the NFL they have to go through college. I'm not advocating for or against changes to the current system. I'm just pointing out the flaw in the argument that players have a choice and if they don't like college they don't have to go. That's a bad take

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

90% of the players will never play in the NFL anyway. So for 90%, the NFL rule has no bearing. When they have had choices like CFL, AAFL, XFL, and Arena League, they didn't take it.

It would be silly of me to start a movement demanding that high school players get a percentage of the gate at their stadiums. But, high school is as close as possible to being mandatory to making it as a professional athlete. But again, it is silly because there isn't enough money to argue about. We see million dollar contracts in college and just jump to the conclusion that the players are being shafted. When in fact, the operating budget is just that much higher. Does it get wasted, yes. But, we wouldn't be begged to contribute to the hokie club if the money was unlimited.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Define "viable."

The majority of NFL draftees come from major college programs, because the majority of future NFL draftees know that major college programs are their best option.

They could go play for the CFL, CFL, AAFL, or Arena League. They could get a non-football job near home and work out a lot until they are NFL-eligible. They could send Hudl highlights to do UDFA "walk on" tryouts with teams. If they're good enough, the NFL will sign them. Instead, they choose NCAA programs because it's their best option.

I don't hate the idea of players asking for more from the colleges. I just think that the colleges also have the right to say no. If the argument is that the level of college football play would decline, then fine. That's the colleges' risk to take.

But that doesn't mean they should just accept the status quo and never try to look for something more equitable. The amount of money flying around big time college sports has increased dramatically, but the benefit to the labor force has remained relatively unchanged in that time. It is not unreasonable for them to want better.

It's important, if we are to have productive discussions about this, that everyone is on the same page. A lot of people see 'pay the players' and think of different things. There's a huge difference between players receiving a salary from the school, and players get paid by advertisers in exchange for sharing sponsored Instagram content.

Twitter me

Yeah but not every student, especially undergrad students, do "real academic research." And of those that do, they often get paid in research assistant positions through grants and corporate sponsorship.

Uhhh buddy iunno where you were living but neither my wife nor myself paid more than 400 a month in rent at blacksburg for 4 years. Hell I paid 250 for a year.

Taylor, looking desperately throws it deep..HAS A MAN OPEN DANNY COALE WITH A CATCH ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE FIVE!!!!....hes still open

My son graduated 2 years ago. His portion of rent and utilities was 6-700 a month his whole time there, after freshman year.

My condo rented for $850 a month for a three bedroom until I sold it in April. That also included water, sewer, trash, etc. You only had to play for phone, electricity and cable/internet.

Son is starting a lease on a 4 Bdrm townhouse through one of the property management companies in B'Burg. Rent is $1320. So $330 rent plus his share of utilities.

In 2005 when I did my grad school year at Tech, I had a 1BR at 462/mo (would have been 434, but the extra 28 bucks got me cable). That same apartment starts at 736 now.

My (now) wife rented in that same complex and split a 2BR that was renting at 510/month. Today it starts at 798.

No, I *don't* want to go to the SEC. Why do you ask?

We don't love dem Hoos.

You raise a good point here. Let's not talk about the Johnny Football's of the world, but the 2nd/3rd string linebacker that is on scholarship, but not actually playing meaningful snaps on Saturdays. For those guys, free tuition, healthcare, nutrition, physical instruction in the weight room, room & board, athletic apparel, etc., is a GREAT deal. If they suddenly have to give back 25% of the cash value of all that for taxes, then these demands result in a net loss for them.

On the other hand, if you are Johnny Football, Cam Newton, Tim Tebow, Famous Jameis, or some other star capable of making a fortune in endorsements, who cares if you have to pay taxes on it? If this ever comes into fruition, the kicker will be whether there is some type of uniformity that they try to implement. Do that and the "stars" lose. Make it totally open market and the fringe scholarship players lose out.

I don't fault the players one bit, and in fact, I applaud them, but these things are never as simple as they're made out to be once we remove the emotional aspects.

"That's it guys. Let's get out of here. That cold drink's waitin' on us, let's go." - Mike Young after win no. 300.

This is why I think the Olympic model would work perfect:

  • The school compensates all athletes the same: Scholarship, housing, food, cost of living adjustment
  • Athletes can sell their services to external businesses as they see fit (sponsored instagram content, commercials, etc)

Twitter me

I've always liked this idea. It seems like the only fair way without setting up a minor league option that MLB, NHL and NBA have in place.

Plus it might bring back NCAA Football. I've always preferred that game to Madden.

Only way it happens is if there's some sort of player's association for EA to bargain with. Only way a formal player's association can form is if they are ruled as employees.

There's no way that EA is going to negotiate with 10,000 or more individual college football players every year.

It is really the only thing that makes sense. The scholarship model in place now is by far more favorable to 95%+ of college athletes. The absolute stud football and basketball players do deserve the right to profit off endorsement deals and the like. Even the top wrestlers, golfers, and track and field athletes would be able to lock down some pretty sweet endorsement deals.

Those deals could be between athlete and the school's athletic department or an outside entity. This would absolutely skew recruitment of the top athletes even more than it already is. But I'm not sure how much that matters when compared to where it is today.

I think they have to try it, and clearly the new cost of attendance was a temproary solution that they thought would make the whole issue go away. You just cannot treat the Trevor Lawrence's the same as back-up punter at UConn.

This would absolutely skew recruitment of the top athletes even more than it already is.

Everyone says this, but I disagree - I think this could actually lead to more parity, because recruits could benefit from being a big fish in a small(er) pond.

Let's say your a high 4-star DB - You could go to Bama, possibly get buried on the depth chart, but even if you start, you'll still be competing with every other player on that defense for attention from advertisers. Or, you could go to Virginia Tech, be the star of the defense, and the new poster child for Camp Sauce. Your chances of getting the NFL are probably pretty similar at both schools, but if you play at Blacksburg, you'll shine a little bit brighter (and make a little bit more money) than you could at bama.

Twitter me

I don't know about you, but I would absolutely prefer to make money and lose some of it as taxes when the alternative is not making any money at all.

Would you still prefer to make money and lose some of it in taxes when the alternative is to get tax-free non-cash compensation?

What if no one could promise you how much money you would make, relative to your non-cash compensation?

Well, assuming that the compensation they're getting in this hypothetical situation is above and beyond the current benefits given to them, and considering that the current benefits aren't considered to be taxable income, I fail to see why that would matter.

The simple answer is to give them a choice.

Option #1: You take the schollie and meet the same academic standards as any other student at the school.

Option #2: You are an employee of the team. You get paid a salary, pay taxes, etc.

There's nothing stopping someone who takes option #2 from enrolling and getting an education, but it removes the incentive to cheat on admissions, eligibility, fake classes, etc. In other words, for the "ain't come to play school" crowd, let's quit pretending that this is about anything other than money and a shot at the league.

"Those who jump into the void owe no explanation to those who stand and watch."
--unknown

I think DC's point is that you're asking administrators, coaches, and players to take on completely different roles.

You say these things like people who are taxed and have performance metrics are suddenly willing to stop working rather than deal with them.

I mean, a lot of companies/individuals do avoid starting new jobs, entering new markets, creating new products, etc due to complexity. So yea, sometimes people do turn down an opportunity to make money because they don't want to deal with the overhead.

It's not like you just figure out Title IX and they you can start cutting paychecks... You're basically asking a disjointed conglomerate of companies to all completely change their business model.

Twitter me

As Warren Buffett himself has said, he's never met anyone that was opposed to making more money because of the tax implication.

If players have to deal with those questions because they are being paid, I think it would be an interesting study to see the economic impact. Something tells me it would actually result in only the best athletes playing. Is that a bad thing from a product standpoint?

Apples to oranges. These kids get a benefit that is worth tens of thousands of dollars and it's tax free. If you convert it to cash/wages, in addition to being more expensive for the university to provide, they would have to provide approximately 25% more of it across the board just for these kids to break even. Listen to all the stories about the cost of living stipends not being sufficient, players being hungry on Saturdays during the off season, etc. Now take away that stipend, plus several hundred dollars, and give it to Uncle Sam. Would the average, non-star player be happy with that? I think the answer would overwhelmingly be no. Unfortunately, this is one of those things that will be largely misunderstood until reality sets in.

For the star players, however, if they sign some big endorsement deals that more than offset the taxes on their tuition/room and board, then yes, of course. But those will be a select few of the 85 guys on a football roster.

"That's it guys. Let's get out of here. That cold drink's waitin' on us, let's go." - Mike Young after win no. 300.

Let's turn it around the other way. What if your employer changed from paying you wages to instead providing housing and food for your work. You wouldn't be able to get a job on the side and your entire industry would make this move unilaterally so your only recourse would be to change professions if you wanted to opt out. You wouldn't have to pay taxes though. After four years, you get a 0.5% chance at getting a big payday. You are strongly discouraged from taking any training you can practically use in a different profession after the 4 years.

Is it preferentialpreferable to your current situation?

edit: sometimes my brain words bad

I see what you're saying, and were it not a forced hypothetical that is really not all that comparable or realistic, I would respond "of course not." But let's be clear, from the outset, these kids understand the bargain they are making. All of the benefits we've outlined, in exchange for their "services" on the field. Nobody is forcing them to play collegiate athletics. From the very beginning, they could literally pick any other profession in the world, whether that requires a college education or not. As others have outlined, an Olympic model makes some sense, where they should not be restricted on their ability to earn outside compensation (and pay the taxes on those) using their names and likenesses. But if you are advocating for providing these kids with cash compensation in lieu of a scholarship, then it is taxable income and most players will not be better off today than they were yesterday, subject to few high-earner exceptions for star players. That's just a fact.

"That's it guys. Let's get out of here. That cold drink's waitin' on us, let's go." - Mike Young after win no. 300.

But if you are advocating for providing these kids with cash compensation in lieu of a scholarship

Except that's not what most people are saying at all...? Where are you getting this from? Almost every model I've seen would involve additional pay on top of the current benefits.

All he's saying is that the current benefits are being undervalued by almost every arguing the issue.

I don't think that is the case at all. The benefits that scholarship athletes get are tremendous. I would have loved to get those benefits. However, that doesn't make the benefits equitable when compared to the value that the university gets out of them. I would love to get free lunch every day, that doesn't make the price of my lunch worthwhile compensation for my work.

I see two straw man arguments being presented here:

  1. Do away with scholarships and give athletes pay instead
  2. Scholarships are worthless

I don't think anyone is arguing either of those points.

I think the argument comes down to this, even if you agreed to take a job from your employer for $7.25 an hour it doesn't mean you should never ask for a raise. It also doesn't mean that what your employer is paying you is a fair wage for your work, especially when the employer has a protected monopoly in the industry.

Commenting to the sub-thread at-large here. I don't think there's a one-size fits all approach either. Some athletes provide more value than a scholarship, some provide much less, and some provide much more. Bucketing them all into one solution wouldn't make sense to me.

But even those that "provide less [value] than a scholarship" are still necessary for the team to operate. You still need scout teams of walk-ons and low depth chart guys to practice. And it's not like anyone can do that. People shit on the guys at the end of the roster, but they're still way more athletic than the average athlete or student.

Those are the guys that take a beating every practice for the good of the rest of the team.

Oh I totally agree with you. In my head, I was thinking about a scholarship as the "minimum wage" if you will. To me it wouldn't make sense to provide the scholarship players less than what they already get in the existing system. I think that could happen in a pure free market.

Although, you definitely bring up a great point about how to handle walk-ons.

A bidding war for top prospects would absolutely suck though, especially for schools like VT

I didn't make a straw man argument. And please don't re-write my comment to say what you THINK I may have meant. I meant what I said. The way I said it.

Some are, in fact, diminishing the value of scholarships of all the college athletes who are getting them. Most college scholarships are a net cost to the athletics program when compared to revenues.

I've said this in other threads. It may well be that the folks who want to get paid immediately to play football should have a different avenue outside of college sports. Most college football players aren't going to go on to get paid to play after college football.

Trying to mix up a bunch of strawman arguments and even throwing one in about minimum wage isn't the right way to discuss it.

I would've gladly played football in college in exchange for no scholarship or any other monetary or in kind return on my "services". As a matter of fact, I tried to do so. To be able to run out the tunnel, to have a jersey with my name on it, for the memories. I loved the game, same as I did in high school, same as I did in middle school. I still do, but those days are long gone. I'm sure the overwhelming majority of those that have ever played sports and attended college would agree that had they been given the opportunity to represent their school, they would have done so.

I think there should be an avenue for people to make money from sports right out of high school if they are marketable and talented enough. The only way I see this working is the Olympic Model as stated earlier. But everyone comparing sports to a career are simply wrong for the overwhelming majority of those that participate. It's a game.

I actually think the Olympic model is a good one. The limitations placed on athletes is one of the big problems.

But i disagree with "But everyone comparing sports to a career are simply wrong for the overwhelming majority of those that participate. It's a game." The mount of money flying around show that to the schools, conferences and networks, this is a product that they sell built from the labor of the players, coaches, trainers, etc. It is just as much a game as NFL football is a game. Maybe not for all programs, but for enough of them.

Right, most people are saying let them keep the 40K full ride every year, AND pay them salaries. Which I disagree with.

It's how many grad students fund their education. Their advisor shops around for a research grant and uses that to fund a scholarship for the student plus an additional salary. I still have yet to hear a cogent argument about why a similar model can't work for student-athletes.

Wont somebody think of the wealthy universities

#wewanttoplay was exactly what it was, until #weareunited hit 'em up on the phone.

Leonard. Duh.

Clay Travis has long advocated for paying the players.

15

Pretty sure this will get the season cancelled faster than COVID could. A pandemic is temporary, a players union could be forever. The NCAA and the university presidents are probably hiding under their desks as we speak.

Does a student athlete association need to be a "union"? My understanding was that a union couldn't be had under amateur status but what keeps a group of students from have an association to commonly represent their voice? I am asking because I honestly don't know.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

.....Because they know that thousands of fans don't donate money every year to the NY giants. They also know that the supreme court has been pretty consistent on Title 9 over the years. A players union and salaries will simply put them out of business. The only thing that might not do that would be to pay coaches 75K a year, and bleed more money out of TV. And oh yeah, the donations you won't be getting moving forward that pay for things like the Beamer barn need to be recouped as well. Good luck. Yes, some fools will "donate" to psuedo pro sports teams but it will be a very small fraction of those that do today.

It would however open a few other doors to making income ie specific jersey sales and merchandise though the players would get shares of that as well so maybe it wouldnt be enough. Tough to say without any accurate numbers around.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

There will be 5K fans in Lane consistently - maybe- If these guys are getting 40K a year in scholarships, and 200K salaries, and have agents and hold out for more money, etc. That's not college sports, and believe it or not, some people enjoy the "college" aspect of it- seeing students of your alma mater play as students and not professionals. The fantasy land that if Alabama goes to a pro model, and nothing changes is laughable. The Saints and Falcons don't draw flies unless they are winning big. There is your passion for pro football in the deep south.

I agree with what your saying I was just wondering if there would be enough other money making oppurtunities to make up for the lost donation revenue.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

These collegiate programs could certainly cut back on their extravagant spending. And if after the programs get done paying for all their expenses (labor included) and the market for a top-flight coach is $75,000 / year, what's wrong with that?

I think a lot of the heartache in terms of public opinion is coaches salaries. Fine. Cut them back- whatever. The bottom line though is that anyone in Bama's QB room is much more expendable than Nick Saban. He's proven that. Justin Fuente is much less expendable than any one of the 85 players that turn through the program at 5 years max. There are hundreds of scholarship offers made every year- so coaches salaries are basic supply/demand and market value. What is Hendon Hooker's market value beyond his scholarship costs and stipend? Does he bid himself out during the recruiting process? There is not room in that for fraud, nah.

And here I always thought you were a "Jimmy and Joes" and not "Xs and Os" person.

I am... you need horses. And the best most well compensated coaches, bring in horses. It part of the job. Saban does it better than anyone.

Yeah, I'm terrified that my Hokie Club donation could go directly to the players instead of frivolous crap like replacing name tags on lockers with LED screens because recruiting is completely out of control and stupid.

I don't really have super strong opinions on paying players and player unions but it could hardly be more ridiculous than the other things my donation supports. ยฏ\_(ใƒ„)_/ยฏ

Betcha a nickel that hoke club donations plummet in a huge way when the football team becomes a pro team.

I can promise you they won't get a dime from me.

Not judging either way, rather I want to listen and understand your position more. Why would this change the calculus for you?

Because when I make a donation to school it is for what it can provide to these student athletes. People view the school like it is some money hungry machine that is using and abusing the athletes and hiding 100 dollar bills in the floor boards and the athletes are left with scraps. This is so far from the truth. The college experience for a VT football is damn near celebrity status. I don't donate to the Carolina Panthers or the local Triple A baseball team why would I give money to kids that make more money than I do?

I guess my question is why would you continue to donate to paid professionals? It seems strange to me.

What about the non-revenue sports? That student-athlete experience would still be alive and well in sports like wrestling, soccer, etc.

They will likely suffer because football players at an amateur level should get paid.

I appreciate the thoughtful response. I hadn't considered that viewpoint. But I get where you're coming from now.

I see "donations" as simply a revenue stream marketed by the athletic department to the fanbase as a means to cover scholarship costs. I never really saw it as contributing to that specific cause, as much as boosting the overall funding to the athletic department. In other words, I view it as one big pile o' cash.

It is marketed as a scholarship fund while in reality it is a pile of cash that allows money to be moved to other budgetary line items.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

I do some work in niche college planning and I can say with absolute confidence that...

People view the school like it is some money hungry machine

...this is not so far from the truth. Enrollment Management has dramatically changed the way undergrad degrees are valued and viewed by colleges. The entire system is designed to get as many full-paying students (out of state, no financial aid, no merit aid, etc.) as possible, and make sure that every seat is filled by the highest paying possible customer. And this massive increase in revenue is being largely devoted to maximizing the money cycle by having the sickest buildings, campus housing with lazy rivers, all with the idea to maximize interest from prospective students so that they have a bigger pool to find those full-pay students to fill their seats each year. Meanwhile, it's not getting any easier for the actual educators to find jobs. I have plenty of friends in academia that are extremely qualified, but are likely many years from becoming actual professors. Why add professors when you can hire adjuncts and drastically underpay them instead? The line between educating and generating max revenue through undergrad has blurred significantly. I'm not insinuating it's full on evil, and I am firm believer that education is the key component to a successful society, so don't conflate the two. The people I know involved in academic research and teaching are largely some of the best, most passionate, and most genuinely dedicated people. It's the business side that has turned screwy.

I have said since this started that taking "University" classes on zoom like anybody would at an online school is going to have some people re-thinking what they are paying for. I treasure my degree from Tech. But, at the end of the day, is undergrad education that much different from place to place or does the prestige and selection process for admittance just stack the deck with more god given talent at those highly thought of institutions?

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

this is largely why i think smaller in-state public PUIs are typically the way to go for high schoolers. If you have a good community college around to help defray your first year or two of costs, even better.

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

One of my best friends went to Tri-County Technical College, 5 minutes from Clemson University, for two years and transferred to Clemson. He graduated with the same degree as me and didn't pay Clemson tuition for two of his four years. He and a few of my other friends got an apartment in Central (basically Clemson, lots of off-campus housing is there), and didn't miss out on anything a four year student would with the exception of the freshmen year dorm experience. Which I do think that is a special experience of meeting new people, but it was well worth the trade-off for the money they saved.

I had friends who did the same thing at VT, with Radford and the NRVCC

Twitter me

This is anecdotal, but it is so damn easy to get into a good B-School now, especially with a lot of experience under your belt. If you're looking into graduate school there is going to be a fire sale.

15

As someone who just graduated from b-school, hard disagree. Wharton, HBS, and GBS are more competitive than ever. Similar to college football, the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' is getting wider and wider. Not sure what you're talking about.

Twitter me

I imagine you were accepted several years ago, so I don't think you really understand my comment. HBS and Wharton will always be competitive, but there are more schools out there believe it or not.

15

I graduated in May, so I was accepted about 2.5 years ago. During my final semester, I was heavily involved in the college's curriculum and brand review, so I got a lot of first hand insight into the competitive nature of the MBA market.

Basically, there's 3 business schools that can place you at any job, in any industry, in any region (HBS, Wharton, GBS). There's about 15 schools that can place you in most jobs, in most industries, in most regions (eg; grads typically get 'tier 1' jobs in 'tier 2' cities, or visa-versa). Then there's another 15 schools that occupy a really strong niche (can place you at certain jobs, in certain industries, in some regions - meaning that you're typically restricted to a specific geography, or a very specific org within a certain company). Outside of those roughly 35 schools, you won't get much value in business school (unless an MBA is necessary to advance within the company you're already at).

Going back to your original point - You won't see MBA's go 'on-sale,' rather, you'll see one of three things happen to each program:

  • The top 30-40 MBA programs will be able to charge more than before, because they can prove value
  • MBA's will shut down (see Wisconsin, Wake Forest, Illinois, etc in recent years)
  • MBA's will change format (either go online, create a specialized 'executive' program tailored for certain corporations, etc)

It's yet to be determined if an online program can provide the same value - after all, an MBA's value comes from the professional network, not the education - can you build a strong network with a program that is only online? UNC has been attempting a full time online program for a few years now, but it's still over $100k for two years. Everyone in the industry is watching them closely.

Twitter me

for us plebs who don't know anything, I'm assuming HBS is harvard business school and GBS is... georgetown business school?

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Stanford - and it's GSB

The people who are most familiar with all of this are:

B-school applicants,
B-school graduates,
the standardized test preparation industry, and
recruiters.

I have plenty of friends in academia that are extremely qualified

TKP has ruined me for this phrase

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

Yeah, I only have one friend in academia whom I'd consider "extremely qualified" in both senses

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

I would throw money out of my car window before I donated it to the DC GoGo. Literally. VT players scholarships are paid in large part to donations. If there is a pro machine built from TV money, revenue redistribution, to the point that players are pro's, they don't need my money.

Since Virginia Tech has sadly become a "have not" school in terms of finances we will never win a national championship under the current system. I don't fully understand why you're so intent on protecting it.

Tear it all down, who cares? Maybe we'll be a factor under a different system.

Yes, and unless player salaries are standard across the NCAA, VT will be outbid for all of the best players with money now, instead of just a sales pitch. Same/Same. I'm listening if player salaries are standardized.

I think the SEC would be able to outbid all the other conferences, with a school or two outside the SEC with billionaire donors keeping pace.

Cool. Sign me up. If that happens everywhere perhaps the barrier to winning a championship won't be $150 million per year in revenue.

I thought this was a great explanation on why the end result might not be a "union" in the strictest sense of the word, rather a players organization.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet ...

Interesting thread, but in the end, she dropped a huge question: who is going to lead this organization? If players, are you going to have players making decisions that affect other teams (competitive balance)? Or are you going to have labor lawyer types advising the players? Can't be agents, that's not allowed right now.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

Make the entry age into any American pro sports league 16, and this problem is solved. If you want to be a pro football player, turn pro. Don't go to college. It will be an easy choice. If you go to college, you play by amateur rules. If that's an issue- including no hard cash salary and no union, just turn pro. Done.

If you look at their demands, they aren't asking to be paid. They are asking for uniform standards and guarantees of scholarships for those that opt out due to COVID.

Sure for now but if they succeed at this whos to say it wont lead down that path inevitably? I think thats more what DC is getting at, it starts innocently but once the covid is contained they strike or unite for share of the money and then you have a minor leauge installed. I'm not gonna argue the players deserve to be protected and should be concerned right now but the precedent that could be set here might be the end of college sports as we know it.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

If you're going to use slippery slope logic for this, that means the players can't ask for anything.

Didn't PAC-12 players already ask for revenue?? This is already being asked for by one set of conference players. Am I missing something?

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

Yep, from ESPN

The group is asking the Pac-12 to distribute 50% of each sport's conference revenue evenly among athletes in their respective sports, to give six-year athletic scholarships and for the ability to transfer one time with impunity.

PAC-12 yes, but this larger #WeWantToPlay movement is not asking for revenue

see, the mindset right here is the exact reason politics is so f*&%ing toxic in our country right now. The idea that "if you give an inch they'll take a mile" has completely ruined the spirit of democratic negotiations and compromise. Uncompromising view-points, such as this, have led to the deep divide in our political and social climate. It is unreasonable and unhealthy and extremely divisive. It makes me ill.

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

Maybe if we were able to meet in the middle more people wouldn't feel this way? Sure it's easy to say but after years and years of my way or nothing at all has caused all sides to feel that way. I'm not saying the players aren't owed certain things safety and health wise but this opens a can of worms that takes serious time and care working on.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

Reasonable decision makers in any entity don't respond to "demands".

Which is why, if you're part of the rank and file, your only recourse is to unionize and give weight to your demands.

Maybe, but any change in a long-time status quo is usually the result of "demands"

Pretty much exactly. The rule that they installed saying you have to be 3-years removed from HS is just arbitrary...the NFL gets a free minor league system this way. There should be no rule. If you want to go Pro, go. It's up to the teams to determine if you are hireable...and your parents to sign release allowing you to work (if under age of consent work in your state). If you go to college, you sign a contract requiring certain terms (like working for $x/stipend/etc, length of term, etc). Right now it's all about protecting the profits and free labor system of the NFL/NCAA.

We put the K in Kwality

Who is good enough to play professionally at 16? You think some fast 16 year old receiver should be able to go get rocked by by a 30 year old vet DB/LB? Come on

That's not the question. The question is with no limitations on seeking to get paid professionally, you are then choosing in good faith to be an amateur and play by amateur rules. The marice claretts can go pro right out of high school, so they don't have to take bribes under the table, claim they are slaves, etc.

But in other words a false choice

Gee, if only their was an organization that is responsible for student athletes and their well being and that should have made it a priority to come up with a universal testing, procedures and implementation to ensure all sports (or the two revenue ones at a minimum) were held in some fashion or another...

I can imagine no more rewarding a career. And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction:
โ€œI served in the United States Navy"

KCCO

And if only they had about half a year to prepare!

Russillo had a pretty good opening rant on the bad arguments both for and against paying players on his podcast last week.

Seeing some of these on here.

The Orange and Maroon you see, that's fighting on to victory.

don't forget what the next bit of this scene is tho

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Please don't harsh my objectively fire meme.

The Orange and Maroon you see, that's fighting on to victory.

Welp, that ought to do it...

edit: apparently i killed the gif

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

If they can pull this off, they absolutely SHOULD pull this off.

Sure, but we won't know till we cross that bridge, and I don't think odds are very favorable that they CAN pull it off (that is, safely do a football season with no spread of the virus AND no major issues to the student-athletes / staff that support them).

safely do a football season with no spread of the virus

this is the problem....you can't execute on all or nothing. The virus will spread even if they don't play. So again, what metrics are they looking at. What is an acceptable amount for a virus that these guys will survive 99% of the time?

I haven't heard of any metric they are looking at to play or not. Although I have looked too much but still every time it comes up I don't see we are looking at X for the decision point. Looks like they are just kind of holding on until gameday. I could be wrong though.

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

What is an acceptable amount for a virus that these guys will survive 99% of the time?

Okay, so pick which member of the 85 scholarships plus walkons will die.

But it's not just about the survival rate. We're already getting data about "survivors" with complications that could last their lifetimes. We're getting preliminary data about heart complications, which could be devastating to professional athletes (yes, even student-athletes). People talk about this 99% survival rate which just totally downplays how horrible this virus is while you're suffering from symptoms, and downplays what people may be left with after surviving. They're taking a bullet point and completely misusing it, IM(ns)HO.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

This. Exactly this.

Not only is it the players and walk-ons, but again, supporting staff and the entire army that comes with a CFB team with a P5 conference. It's already been shown that olympic wrestlers / other young people who are of sound health have died and / or have huge complications after recovery, which one of the team and staff members do you think you're willing to die or have permanent health complications?

This can be said of walking out of your house.

COVID makes every social activity a health risk assessment.

And even WITH a vaccine, this will continue to be the case. May as well get used to the idea.

Welcome to the new normal.

It seems like it would be worse for athletes. If there's heart damage, any very physically (aerobic) taxing sport seems like it would dramatically increases the risk of death if the heart damage they're seeing is very widespread.

It's worse for people who have significant health issues.

Even if they aren't aware of them.

This is yet another area were we need to gather the data and follow the science.

Exactly. People here have extremely naive views on how to handle COVID.

Life is risk MANAGEMENT not risk ELIMINATION. I drive to work although I could get killed in a crash. But the odds are remote so it is worth it to me because I need to make money.

Nobody wants to get COVID and die. Duh. But the belief that we can wait until Jan 1 2021 and then we'll have a magical vaccine that gets deployed to 330 million people instantly and nobody ever gets COVID again is just not realistic. There is a ton of anecdotal evidence that the flu vaccine is less effective for obese people. And those happen to be one of the co-morbities for COVID.

So can we have football again if the vaccine is 95% effective? 80%? 60%? Where do you draw the line? What about people going back to work, going to concerts, eating in a restaurant, etc? Is it fair to the 5% who have to stay at home because the vaccine does not work for them that they cannot dine out?

We're not going to eliminate COVID so we ought to have an honest discussion about what represents acceptable limits for risk.

My understanding is that a vaccine could get the population to a herd immunity if around 60% are either vaccinated or immune by other means. I don't know if and when we could get there assuming we do get a working vaccine around new years.

Meanwhile, we can at least be focusing on the most at risk population.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

The longer this thing goes on and the more research is done, the more it seems like anyone could be at risk of complications. Death is not the only long-term effect of this disease.

I wasn't clear. I meant "meanwhile" as in early phases of vaccine implementation. Your point is noted though.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

which one of the team and staff members do you think you're willing to die or have permanent health complications?

Again a false argument. Not everyone who gets it has long lasting complications. There have also been elderly people who have survived it. Not every young person will survive but the overwhelming majority will. More so than with the flu.

Not every old person will die, but they have a greater chance than the young.

There is no way to determine who will have long lasting health complications.

Again what is the acceptable amount of risk?? If it's zero then shut it down.

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

"Not every" is a fancy way of saying "some".

Some who get it will have long lasting complications.
Some young people will die.
Some.

umm....yup....so again what amount of risk are you willing to accept?

some people will die in car accidents....not sure the point you are trying to make.

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

In 2018, 36,560 people died in car accidents in the US. 5 times as many people have died from COVID in a fraction of a year, and there are more deaths every day. I think the point was there is a difference between non-zero and how far away from zero you are. 1 is non-zero, but compared to the population is incredibly small. The previous post seemed to imply that the number was a lot closer to zero.

How many people died of old age last year?

Because I believe you're including many of those in your COVID figure. (Everybody does.)

I wonder if someone, somewhere is normalizing the figures. Maybe someone here knows...

The CDC Is

Excess deaths based on 2017-2019 numbers suggests that weekly expected deaths peaked at 142% on April 11 (corresponds to NYC peak), and is trending back to 100%, currently somewhere between 100 and 110% (data lag creates uncertainty)

Also, really have a hard time making sense of the influenza deaths out of these CDC tables. The column headers are a bit strange, but based on how they code the deaths. Since presumed Covid gets coded as Covid, chance of conflating cause of death. But that is why I tend to look at the deaths normalized against weekly expected deaths.

Apparently I need to drink. This is the graph that I was talking about. I was planning on doing a video for all the people I know on Facebook who think that all the deaths are fake because anybody who had COVID who died of the flu, pneumonia, or even car accidents are all attributed to COVID. The fact is that a LOT more people have died this year, and it's really easy to see from that excess deaths graph.

Edit: here's the link to the graph I was talking about. You have to scroll down a fair amount to get to it. In my book, this is a rather compelling graphic to show that there actually are substantial deaths from COVID. And it looks like it's on the rise again (because there is a lag in death reporting and it still looks like the deaths are increasing without the lagging death numbers).

Thanks!

Seems to me that these are the numbers we use when having this discussion.

I apparently really need to get to the video I've been thinking of making where I show a graph from the CDC that shows that 140k more people have died this year of ALL causes than have died in the past 3 years (it's amazingly close how many people die each year from year to year from all causes). And it's by week, so it's easy to see when the coronavirus deaths started.

I think we need to get used to the idea of "risk assessment".

Okay, so pick which member of the 85 scholarships plus walkons will die.

This is a false argument. Basically saying if you want kids to play then you want them to die, you want kids in school you want them dead. Its the same argument and it's false. People are going to get the virus no matter what you do. Wearing a t-shirt over your face isn't going stop the virus.

I suppose a better way to state what I meant was, what is the acceptable amount of risk? If it's zero, then shut it down indefinitely until there is a cure. If it's not zero then what is it?

We don't know the long lasting complications. But how do you counter that unknown? Shut down sports for the next 10 years until we can study those that have had it and what complications they have in life that are now directly related to having CV-19?? I don't know how you stop things because their may be some long lasting complications that we are unsure of.

And not everyone is going to have the same last effects. Some will have none, just as some have had very minor symptoms while having it. Some will have serious effects, just as some people die from the virus.

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

Yes, some people will get the virus, but not everybody. People that are willing and able to continue social distancing are significantly less likely to contract and spread the virus.

Having a hundred people to congregate together every day for practice and then once a week to interact closely with a different group of a hundred people that have been congregating together every day for practice is the exact opposite of social distancing.

so then you advocate for them not playing....until some metrics are met.

What are those metrics? Again, what amount of risk are you willing to take?

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

Some sort of bubble would be a nice start. But doing that would admit that the "athlete" part of "student-athlete" is more important than the "student" part.

Honestly, I don't see any way for college football to happen without a dramatic shift in how this country either (a) handles the COVID situation, (b) reconsiders the status of college football players, or (c) ideally both.

It is hopeless...very few are willing to try and answer your question. So many people are just unwilling to even try and calculate the risk balance and make decisions with some sort of risk balance assessment.

As you said earlier, all or nothing, and so most say shut it down, shut it all down, cannot put a metric on it, and then pretend that if we had handled it differently from the start the virus would be gone already. Not true and a vaccine won't eliminate it either.

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

Just because I can't answer the question doesn't mean I'm not willing to create some sort of risk balance assessment. Consider the fact that I (a) am not skilled in epidemiology and the risk factors inherent in the field, and (b) lack the data to do so even if I was so skilled. Because I can't answer the question doesn't meant that there isn't an answer at all.

Edit: This is why we have expertise. And if the experts in the field are saying that we shouldn't have a football season, then we shouldn't have a football season.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

But who is saying that and why? Some schools are looking to play. Others have already cancelled. There doesn't seem to be any experts giving any good explanation one way or the other.

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

That's true. I haven't heard any experts weighing in (yet) whether or not there should be college football this season. I was just making the point that just because I couldn't answer the question doesn't mean I don't care that there IS an answer.

And maybe they haven't weighed in because their current advice (no large groups congregating) precludes it, and they don't feel the need to state it outright.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

Exactly. It is far easier to be a critic than it is to actually sit down and decide what represents acceptable risk.
If the goal is zero deaths then cancel collegiate sports and start rescinding scholarships or at least stop extending scholarships to high school seniors until we have a 100% vaccine and eradicate COVID.

I don't see how it's false because with the mortality rate of Covid people certain people WILL die when they don't need to, and certain people WILL have long-lasting complications and effects when they don't need to. If everyone wasn't stupid about not wearing masks and isolated themselves and did what they needed to months ago (a la New Zealand) then this probably wouldn't be an issue at all. You say it's not known who will be impacted horribly or be asymptomatic? Then until we do, no one should have to risk their lives just because it's a roll of the dice. You're gambling with peoples lives for no reason.

So yes, the metric SHOULD always be zero. No one should risk their life just so you can get entertainment every Saturday to watch 18-22 year olds bash their heads and score a few points. If not, then maybe you can explain to the aforementioned dead / badly affected people why your need to be entertained is more important than their loved ones.

You're gambling with peoples lives for no reasonso you can watch sports on your TV.

FTFY.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

It's false because you are saying if I think they should play then I want them to die. That's false. Driving on the road everyday someone WILL die. Someone WILL have life long complications from a car wreck, but you accept the risk and get in your car and do your best to stay out of an accident.

You take more risk than zero everyday in your life. If the risk should be zero, then these kids don't need to be in college classes either. They need to stay isolated at their home.

And this is more than just I want to see football played. Again, when do we start again?? Perhaps this should be the end of college sports since we don't want to but any risk at all onto these students. Yet they already play an inherently risky game and accept that risk not knowing that they may be traumatically injured on any given play.

Zero risk means stay in your house and only leave for bare essentials until someone says it's safe to come out agian.

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

It's false because you are saying if I think they should play then I want them to die. That's false. Driving on the road everyday someone WILL die. Someone WILL have life long complications from a car wreck, but you accept the risk and get in your car and do your best to stay out of an accident.

You're forgetting that its not just the risk to the athlete but to the risk of others around them. you may die from driving in a car wreck, but if you take out hundreds of others around you and kill them / maim them permanently then it's not a risk just to the driver but to the rest of society. This is thoroughly unacceptable.

my personal opinion is yes - do online classes, everyone wear a damn mask, and be isolated for three months (like we were supposed to do have done) so that we can have nice things later on in the year. But no, some people are stupid dumb-asses who protest the most illegitimate things and therefore we are where we are.

You can't have your cake and eat it too for this. Either you do what's neccessary and stop this completely or we'll constantly be killing and hurting folks, which is unacceptable.

we'll constantly be killing and hurting folks, which is unacceptable.

We do this anyways.

And I'm one of the "stupid dumb-asses" because there are just as many reports saying the masks do nothing.

Either you do what's necessary and stop this completely or we'll constantly be killing and hurting folks, which is unacceptable.

We aren't going to stop CV completely. Again the whole point of mask wearing and social distancing is to "slow the curve" so hospitals don't get overwhelmed. That's been accomplished. We aren't stopping the spread regardless of how many people mask up.

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

We do this anyways.

Lol wut? We constantly and deliberately kill ppl?

And I'm one of the "stupid dumb-asses" because there are just as many reports saying the masks do nothing.

I don't know what to say to someone who doesn't want to wear masks. You're part of the problem.

Let's say there's a 50/50 chance a mask helps or does not help slow the spread of COVID-19. Isn't throwing one on easy enough and relatively painless that it's worth it?

I want to print up some masks with the following on them. "This isn't a political statement, its an IQ test."

Wearing a mask is shopping cart theory, but instead of potentially not inconveniencing people in a parking lot you're potentially protecting others' health.

The Orange and Maroon you see, that's fighting on to victory.

Yeah, to me it's an easy value prop to accept โ€” minor inconvenience for myself, potentially save a bunch of lives. ยฏ\_(ใƒ„)_/ยฏ

The Europeans improve on the shopping cart theory. By charging you 50 eurocents to take a cart, which you get back by returning the cart and connecting it to another cart.

But with that extra incentive, they improve compliance from 75% to 95%.

For the coronavirus, European countries sometimes imposed fines for breaking rules or not wearing mask. Paris fined people $220 for not wearing a mask.

My city is threatening the same. I think $100 for first offense, $250 for a second, and $500 and possible jail time for a third. Not sure how effective it is since I still see people out and about without one, or with it hanging under their chin or whatever, but it's something.

These arguments about "what is acceptable risk?", then pointing to potential death rates among college age men drives me nuts. Schools aren't dropping football because of the risk to the players - they're dropping it because of the risk to the community. This is about virus containment. Look, as you and everyone else on this planet knows, this virus is insidious. Once it gets its hooks into the community, its hard to get rid of and people start dying. So everything is geared towards preventing its spread.

But here's the deal, playing football does not, in any way, help to prevent the spread of Covid 19. It's basically doing the exact opposite of social distancing (and f**k trying to play with a mask on). The worry is, especially if colleges are trying to have students come back, that you get an outbreak on the football team and it makes its way to the larger student body. Then they have to shut down classes again or go fully online. That's a cluster that schools just don't want to deal with right now, because it will ultimately hurt the money coming in from tuition.

That's the risk that schools are calculating. Not whether 1 or 2 guys on the football team / staff will get complications from catching the virus.

You make a good point, but I haven't heard school officials or conferences explaining it like that. They mostly refer to the risks to the student athletes, coaches, or staff members.

A 20 year old athlete probably experiences greater risk of death riding in a car to the stadium in a normal year than what this disease presents. I may be exaggerating, not sure. Either way, it is impossible to state that we are not willing to accept some risk. Such is life.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

A 20 year old athlete probably experiences greater risk of death riding in a car to the stadium in a normal year than what this disease presents.

Except you're forgetting that, in this analogy, the risk of death riding a car may cause this athlete to crash into hundreds of other people who did not take that risk, resulting in those other people to die or be severely maimed.

The risk is not just for the college athlete, it's for also the others around them that are affected by the gross negligence just so you can watch some sports. Such is not life. I will not risk my loved ones just so you can enjoy TV. If you like sports so much, go play some football with your own family.

In your car example, the folks in a car signed up for that level of risk. The folks on the sidewalk signed up for that level of risk.

Just like the folks who play sports are signing up for that risk, and the folks around them are signing up for their levels of risk. The families who let them visit sign up for their levels of risk.

The folks in higher risk categories need to take that into account.

Actually, no one on the sidewalk signed up for that risk. The drivers lack of control of the car (or however more nuanced we get in this inapt analogy) is the drivers risk, not the pedestrian or anyone else in another car that gets affected.

Further, considering not everyone has good health insurance these days, it's an increased risk that they did not sign for and are being put at risk based on the sophomoric need to watch sports and put others lives in danger. A better analogy is if you want to go jumping off a bridge into a pool then go for it, but don't impact me by dragging me (or anyone from my family) off your jump with you.

A childish car analogy doesn't do justice on the horrible impact this can have on ones family, but to incorrectly say "well everyone is at the same level of risk" or what not is a strawmans argument and doesn't address the credibility of how badly this pandemic is affecting others.

If you walk on the sidewalk, you've signed up for the risks inherent in that activity. You can step in poo, a dog can bite you, or a car can hit you. Yes, you signed up for that, even if you weren't aware of it. Doesn't mean you can't sue someone for negligence, but you did sign up for risk when you walked out your door.

Nowhere did I say "everyone is at the same level of risk". I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that. I have said many times just the opposite. People have to tolerate their own risks, and their own tolerance for risk. You're only as safe as the riskiest person in your household, or who you have close contact with.

What's important is for a person to understand their own level of risk and risk tolerance, and giving others the right to determine theirs.

As far as college football is concerned, I'm pretty comfortable that we all get that there are risks involved. If the administrations of colleges, the coaches, and the student athletes want to give it a shot, I'd let them.

Lol dude. Again, it's not the same risk. And no, walking on the sidewalk and stepping on dog poo is not the same as getting Covid-19.

I wasn't saying they're the SAME risk. Just that you are signing up for some element of those risks if you choose to go for a stroll.

There is going to be some number of clowns not cleaning up after their dogs. And some clowns not wearing masks.

This is also why my parents don't leave their house. (the covid, not the dog poo)

Again. No. Not the same. Let's leave it at that because this is like bashing my head against a wall.

You just proven my point and don't even realize it. Innocent bystanders or people in other vehicles completely obeying the law are killed every day. They didn't sign up for anything, it is simply the risk of living. As for college football, everybody in that stadium is signing up for it. And, what they are signing up for is not all that risky.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

...no because the whole point is there's added risk on top of being outside on the street. I choose to walk on the sidewalk not in the middle of I-95 while blindfolded and my ears plugged up. There's a difference there.

Lol I don't know how much more clearer I can be when I say the risks are not the same. I can't continue to educate you about added risk and and you keep going in the wrong direction with it.

You're not educating anyone. You're giving your opinion.

It's an important distinction, and one that you need to be aware of.

About added risk? Please. I do this for a living.

In any case, you can bring a horse to a well, but can't force it to drink.

You argue with people about Coronavirus risk for a living? You are probably making a killing on Facebook.

Hustlers gotta hustle, baby

Well, Jesus H Christ, why bother with any preventative activities, then? Screw vaccines, gimme a pack of smokes while I drive 100mph without a seatbelt.

"Innocent people are killed everyday." What a stupid fucking argument.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

So yes, the metric SHOULD always be zero.

This is where my stupid fucking argument originates from. Good luck stepping out your door if the acceptable level of risk in anything you do is zero.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

I didn't ask to be born! *shakes fist*

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Good luck stepping out your door if the acceptable level of risk in anything you do is zero.

You're getting confused. I didn't say zero for everything - only zero for something as preventable as Covid-19. Every other country in the world sans Brazil and India have done at least to get it to a position where they've flattened the curve, why is it so hard for us to do? At least get it to that level first before you start asking for a football season.

It can never be zero for Covid-19. It will also never be zero for influenza, or the "common cold," or meningitis. It's closer to zero, but not zero, for dengue fever or tuberculosis.

If we started a full lockdown today, we couldn't maintain it forever. At some point we would need to begin easing. What is that point? It's not "zero Covid-19 risk." It can't be, because that's just not possible.

We probably should roll back parts of the easing. But we should also have a plan other than "lock down until vaccine!"

Railing about what earlier lockdowns should have been doesn't really fix anything now. And no one anywhere locked down to the point of "zero risk." Every country whose response has been lauded, has had additional cases. That doesn't mean that they weren't effective. But fixation on zero is as useless as fixation on immediate return to pre-pandemic normal.

FWIW, I'm speaking about life overall, not college football specifically. The decision to have or cancel a college football season has very little direct impact on me personally. I haven't had time to watch more than 1-2 games a year on TV, never mind going on person. My livelihood has no reliance on the sport.

It can never be zero for Covid-19. It will also never be zero for influenza, or the "common cold," or meningitis. It's closer to zero, but not zero, for dengue fever or tuberculosi

I think we're just splitting hairs here IMO. Sure there's a "risk" the black plague suddenly pops up in the country, but right now Covid-19 has a higher risk of infecting and spreading. We need 0 new cases per day and a capacity where our Hospitals don't get overwhelmed like they are right now. I punt to NZ because that is a country that did it. It can work. We just need to be not stupid and do what is necessary in the short-term and quit being so short-sighted.

The point is, it is unacceptable the way it is right now, and starting football in this environment is unacceptable.

Sure there's a "risk" the black plague suddenly pops up in the country

Now let's not stretch. The Black Plague has a cure.

ESPN. The coverage is excellent, you'd be surprised at how much you can pick up.

I wouldn't necessarily point to NZ right now as their "100-day streak" has ended and they're back in lockdown over like 5 confirmed cases. That would never happen here.

God I wish we had a 100 day streak and all we had to worry about were 5 cases. We're up to, what, 6000 NEW cases per day??

I'd bring up NZ all day errday in this regard.

You're missing a 0 on that 6000

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

Agreed I was!

Edit: Drinking for reposting Dan Patrick Tweet

Bring back #VT2SEC

No.

So, I got a call from one of our customers, an Ohio State booster. After talking work, he very bluntly stated that anOSU boosters are trying very hard right now to temporarily join the Big12 and play in the fall, but the president (or AD, not sure which one), is full bore no sports for full academic year b/c they don't want to pay anything over scholarships to student athletes. Other than being floored by his bluntness, it's all out in the open right now. #sauces

TKPhi Damn Proud
BSME 2009

Scott Frost just had a presser, and voiced Nebraska will play this fall, even if it means no Big10, so this is now, all out in the open.

TKPhi Damn Proud
BSME 2009

That seems like such an odd thing to say. Considering the ACC schedule we put out is almost entirely conference games, who does he think he's going to play if his conference doesn't play? Or does he think it'll turn into a free-for-all of conferences not playing, so schools just scheduling whoever they can?

The most likely answer is that they'd rejoin the Big XII for a year, the same way that ND would be a full member of the ACC this season

Yeah, I wrote that before I saw some of the other comments about teams switching conferences. I guess that makes sense. If that type of thing happens, it seems like any schedules teams put out now might be kinda worthless. This is going to be such a bizarre process.

It has already been a bizarre process, starting in March when March Madness was cancelled. And (almost) anything that puts live college football on my TV this fall is something that I will support.

I saw something where the sec is trying to attract other teams to form a super conference this year

Danny is always open

i laughed way to hard at this, leg for you.

TKPhi Damn Proud
BSME 2009

Is it too late to swap the Liberty game for one with Nebraska?? Asking for a frie...

...nevermind, asking for Hokies everywhere!

Crazy. Just wish back in March people had been like "Hey wear a mask and social distance or else we might not have college football this year either"...

Gobble Till You Wobble

Nobody was wearing a mask in March. There weren't any and we didn't know then that covering your mouth prevents the spread of contagions.

../s?

ESPN. The coverage is excellent, you'd be surprised at how much you can pick up.

Maybe you weren't, but I was wearing a mask by the end of March.

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

Leg for "Men at Work" pull!

Sure, but they're wearing their masks wrong.

That and what if we opened up now instead of early June. What if there were actual enforced standards for opening up businesses and real consequences for social gatherings over the limit.

Edit removed politics.

Yea i'm not really trying to get into the politics of it all. It's more so everyone acting like college football getting cancelled is coming out of left field when we've known this was a very serious likelihood dating back 5 months almost.

Gobble Till You Wobble

Be careful, reality might get this thread shut down.

Most of us recognize the situation...

Reminds me of something I saw the other day, said something to the order of "if you really wanted your kids back in school this fall, you should have listened to the experts in the spring.

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

Whenever i knowingly make a decision that will have short term benefits but potentially more significant long term consequences, i like to say "that's future StineyDraw48's problem". I feel like there are a lot of people who had that thought process in regards to this leading up to football starting.

Gobble Till You Wobble

Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone, but yeah, it's pretty much this.

I think that is a little unfair. We did listen to the experts in the Spring. Every bit of direction showed us flattening the curve and preserving hospital capacity and gaining PPE inventory. We largely accomplished that but now it seems that bad mouthing ourselves is the more hip thing to do. All while the states that were out of control early get pats on the back. I think in hindsight, the closures were just not timed correctly. New York got hit before it knew what to do while other places shut down when the majority of the spread hadnt even gotten to that geographical area yet. In my opinion, that is what formed the mindset in a lot of areas that it was being overblown. We all live in our own bubble. When the world was shut down and you lived in a bubble with very little noticeable spread, it didn't hit home. I am rambling, but I think we did a better job than given credit for based on the information that was provided.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

You have hit the nail on the head!

"Take care of the little things and the big things will come."

I think the self-bad-mouthing comes from the fact we stopped doing everything. Like you said we listened to the experts in the Spring but it's been Summer for almost 2 months.

I live in Pittsburgh which was a model of handling the pandemic - till we opened up, and people stopped following the guidelines. Then we became one of the worst hotspots in the country. So no, we don't deserve a pat on the back for flattening the curve for a bit.

Turns out pandemics, like sports, is a "what have you done for me lately" kinda thing.

This. It's like if you get high blood pressure and your doctors says you need to cut way down on salt and saturated fats. You do it for 2 weeks (or 2 months, whatever) and then you go back to high salt, high saturated fats, because Yum! Do you pat yourself on the back for the 2 weeks or months you were good, or say, uh, you kinda need to keep up with that to see the benefit?

No. Listening to the experts would have been doing an actual lockdown, like all the countries that mostly got it under control did.

What we did was state by state issued varying degrees of stay at home orders, with no real consequences for violating them...sure there were threatened consequences, but much like mask mandates, they're not real. My local DA has openly stated he will not prosecute anyone or any business who violates the statewide order.

In sum, we did fuck all, and now it shows

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

And then when local authorities did try and punish places state authorities in many states changed the mandates, guidelines or passed emergency orders banning localities from having stricter guidelines than the state.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

*looking at Georgia*

No, I *don't* want to go to the SEC. Why do you ask?

We don't love dem Hoos.

Flattening the curve was also supposed to give us the time to build up a coherent response to outbreaks through testing and contact tracing. Instead the virus was politicized and now even simple things like wearing a mask are these political hotbed debates and we have no where near the capacity to actually understand the spread of the virus in our country.

There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city.

Another problem is that we started off pretty slow. I started hearing about COVID in February but our leadership downplayed it and kicked the can down the road until spring. We should have been taking action earlier than March and we weren't. Slow and ineffectual response, mixed messaging, disjointed efforts by different governing bodies and an utter lack of collaboration has made all of this much worse.

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

The only places that really lost grips on it early were NY and DC etc. Broadly as a nation it was much later. Early closures in some areas did nothing but delay exposure and present a false sense of victory.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

I'm not talking about shut downs or whatever. I'm saying we should have been ramping up testing capacity and devising plans for when the virus would ultimately hit. Instead we pretended the virus wasn't going to affect us. Called it a hoax. Said it would be done by Easter. Instead of wasting time trying to pretend that the virus wasn't real, or a threat, we could have been working towards objectives that would help mitigate the impact of the virus. We knew about this virus as early as January. We didn't act quickly enough and now we're paying for it

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

I am rambling, but I think we did a better job than given credit for based on the information that was provided.

Sorry, but absolutely-fucking-not true.

We were all flattening the curve, then idiots started going out during Memorial day weekend with the idea that "Covid is just a hoax". And then all hell broke loose. And no, timing was not off at all. Yes NYC was hit hardest but that doesn't mean that Alabama shouldn't have been locked down too. It's a friggin pandemic for gods sake. Either you lock down properly or you might as well don't lock down at all. To continue with over simplified analogies for the sake of argument, if you have a large leak in your boat, you don't try cover it with a screen door.

We deserve every shit storm we get for this as we can't follow basic logical instructions on how to handle a medical situation. We question nurses and doctors and the CDC and then think "oh, we did the best we could given the information". Really? We hardly followed the information. Need more proof? Think of how many idiots there STILL are right now who won't even wear a mask.

Whatever man. We aren't going to change each other's mind. I was not saying anything was handled well, but that it was unfair to just say we, and we are both we, didn't listen. I did listen and I do wish more people would have treaded lightly upon reopening. However, now, today, I have zero confidence that we are going to do anything close to what you want which is a full scale lock down again. So you can keep bashing Americans and looking at what we didn't do, I am not.

Sidenote: try some flex seal on that boat, I seen it on tv. Peace and Go Hokies.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

The good thing about this country is that we're free to self-criticize as much as we want. I have no issues doing that and don't think "just because i'm American I have to blindly agree and support what we do".

Being an American and loving America aren't just about proudly waving a flag around and thumping our chests for the status quo. Just because you want something to be better doesn't mean you don't love it. It means you love it enough to want it to improve. Being critical of Americans and our systems doesn't mean we don't love America or her citizens. It means we love them enough to want them to be the best. And we have to be honest with ourselves. We're not the best right now. We want to be, but we just aren't. There is nothing wrong with admitting that. Admitting that is, in fact, the first step towards becoming the best. I believe we can get there as a country and I really hope we do. I love America and I want America to be a world leader to be proud of. We just aren't at the moment. That's okay. We can be again!

It's always darkest before the dawn ~ Thomas Fuller

Agreed!

Hell I don't know how to respond to or think or say on any of this...I do think of one thing and it's this. Can you imagine a 16/17 year old slot receiver going over the middle and reaching for a pass and getting lit up by a TJ watt(Imagine the water boy and Michigan putting in their towel boy) or a 17 year old qb rolling out to meet Aaron Donald...unlike baseball, basketball or golf...football players aren't fully developed at 16 or 17 or even 18 in rare circumstances. They need a couple of years in the college weight room and nutrition experts working with them. Losing a year of this could be detrimental to a bunch of these guys and their future. Going from high school to the NFL just seems very scary (unless there's a bo Jackson or Herschel walker out there). I'm not sure what is right or what is wrong right now but at least for college football they need dare I say have to have at least one year at a minimum to develop. Loved reading all the opinions on this thread and whether we play this year or on the spring or hell..in 2023 I'll be there with you in lane๐Ÿ‘Š๐Ÿป๐Ÿ‘Š๐Ÿป๐Ÿ‘Š๐Ÿป...go Hokies!!!!

HokieHighVPI03

Thank you sir, may I have another Coronavirus thread?

You're going to NEED more than one Coronavirus thread, and you're going to GET more than one Coronavirus thread.

I mean we've already had 16 dedicated COVID threads, and we're probably not even halfway to a vaccine yet. Methinks we're destined for a lot more before this is over.

Just wait 'til we have a vaccine, and people figure out that a vaccine isn't a cure.

This is pretty good news for #wewanttoplay...

Leonard. Duh.

This is great to see, although all students are not back on campus full time. And that's when things get dicey. A football coach can direct their plays to never do x, y, and z to avoid the possible infection points, but those same rules do not apply to the 97% of students who are not athletes. And these athletes will be in the same classrooms, hallways, and dining halls as these other students. It is possible to look AHEAD, listen to epidemiologists and say "wow, even though it's good now it will get worse before we have a chance to react - therefore we're going to be proactive rather than reactive."

And after spending a weekend in the 'Burg last weekend, it's only inevitable that these students are going to catch it in droves.

#38-0

Question for you: how many people does it take to spread a pandemic? Are all 12,000 students required to quarantine the entire time they're on campus? Do they have to wear masks the entire time? What do they do with the students who are positive? Did they test people in the town? Did they test employees? So it's low now, that's great. What are the odds that number stays the same? Decreases? Increases? Not trying to be snarky, but I honestly don't know the answers - according to my math, it's around 40 people. That sounds good, but can they keep the numbers down?

how many people does it take to spread a pandemic?

In the US, I believe it was 15.

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

I'm not starting Coronavirus Thread XVII. I just want kids to go to school, get to experience college, and not be traumatized for life from 2020... and this looked pretty positive, especially for the prospect of college sports.

Leonard. Duh.

Oh, cool, there are already 40 confirmed cases on campus and it's only day 1. And if it spreads as quickly as it did in March, doubling roughly every 4 days, by the end of August they'll be looking at over 1,200 cases.

Hopefully, people will be better about quarantining the confirmed positives and take social distancing seriously on the second go round.

May as well get used to the new normal.

If "the new normal" is "let's just give up on preventing the spread of the virus", and the (fairly conservative) estimate of a 1% mortality rate is accurate, then what you're saying is that those 3.3 million lives matter less to you than the other 99% getting back to a "normal" life.

Edit to add: I agree that hopefully they are better at quarantining and contact tracing, but... seeing how the rest of the country is handling it, I find it doubtful at best. Also, it's hard to socially distance when you're taking classes in person.

posted before your edit

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

Hang on a second.

What I mean by "the new normal" is that the virus is here to stay. We'll have to evaluate the risks of our everyday activities verses their benefits.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't take reasonable measures to try and protect others and themselves.

I wasn't advocating "let's just give up on preventing the spread of the virus".

Fair. I admit that was a bit of a straw man on my part. However, as I already posted upthread:

Having a hundred people to congregate together every day for practice and then once a week to interact closely with a different group of a hundred people that have been congregating together every day for practice is the exact opposite of social distancing.

At this point, social distancing and masks are the "reasonable measures" to take. College football is incompatible with those measures outside of a fully-contained bubble. A fully-contained bubble is incompatible with the insistence that student-athletes are students first and athletes second.

Whoa, Cowpoke.

Even if a 1% CFR were true, 3.3. million is 1% of the US population, not COVID cases. The total number of PCR cases is 5.1 million... you need to do 1% of that number.

Although, the actuality and context of all of those numbers are a WHOLE 'nother can of worms for debate in the other thread(s).

Leonard. Duh.

The implication was that we just give up and allow the virus to run through the population unchecked. There's your 3.3 million. And if you look at deaths vs. confirmed cases, you'll find the current rate to be over 3%.

In any case, I already admitted it was a straw man argument and moved on.

Cool.

However, you do still seem to be a little defensive of your bold assumptions. Go in peace.

Leonard. Duh.

Honest question. Do you think the players would be more likely to get the virus if they DON'T play? If they play, most will probably be careful cause they want to play on Saturday. If the season is off, I'm guessing they'll care much less and attend parties, etc. Maybe they do so either way, I don't know. Just a thought.

I think it's a good point, and I wondered as well.

I'm guessing they'll care much less and attend parties, etc. Maybe they do so either way

2016 graduate. Can confirm college athletes attend parties during the season. A lot.

#38-0

Sure, in a normal season. But this year knowing that the party may prevent them from playing, maybe not as much. But if they're not playing, there'd be even more time to party and no reason not to. Football would give them another reason to stay safe. And a pretty big one for them.

Wasn't one of Farley's complaints that players were going to Myrtle Beach and not taking precautions seriously in the first place?

Honestly if we want to get to a place where a semblance of normalcy for college students is an option they probably shouldn't be returning in person in the first place. We're asking a bunch of 18-22 year olds who are free from their parents for likely the first time in their life to make better decisions than wide swathes of people are making right now.

And they are more bullet proof than the majority of the population as well. What could go wrong?

A large portion of players will have access to better health care, nutrition, and a safer environment, in terms of COVID precautions, if they stay on campus than if they went home.

The problem with doing so without actually playing will lead to boredom and complacency, so I can see where you are coming from. It could be incentivized to increase compliance, but I doubt everyone gets treated equally in that scenario. Would a coach bench a star player if they broke rules and went to a crowded house party, but still managed to test negative?

"Sooner or later, if man is ever to be worthy of his destiny, we must fill our heart with tolerance."
-Stan Lee

"Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."
-Ron Swanson

"11-0, bro"
-Hunter Carpenter (probably)

Would a coach bench a star player if they broke rules and went to a crowded house party, but still managed to test negative?

The Cleveland Indians' coach just did.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

Just let them play, do they really have that much of a greater or equal chance of contracting the virus if they dont play? Hell, id say they have a better chance if they dont between partying, going back home and seeing friends multiple different times on top of also going to class. They're adults, if they dont wanna play, then dont.

I agree with this but they have to make sure that the safety protocols are actually effective and enforce severe penalties on any team that doesn't follow them

I also look at it from the viewpoint that it's one less level of interaction that's necessary. And, the support staff won't be at more risk of being infected cuz 18-22 year olds can't follow instructions.

So, skimming through this thread, and I'm not sure anyone has pointed out that, schools are already practicing, going through camps, and putting in their own/league/CDC/state protocols.

The only difference between last week and where we are now are the players unionizing. That's it. This has nothing to do with the pandemic. League officials are using it as a crutch, a get out of jail free card. This is all about revenue sharing with the players and breaking the amateurism model.

I said last week in another thread, this pandemic is highlighting the flaws of our socioeconomic system. This is a big one, and it is costing us, not only the game, but businesses, families, players, and alumni.

TKPhi Damn Proud
BSME 2009

I think, like most things in life, it is probably a mix of things. The other new variable is all the info coming out about myocarditis.

I think the easiest way to fix all of this is to let NCAA Football video games come back. Each player sits in their room and controls their avatar for the game. We get 11 on 11 video game simulation of real life. Keep stats and records. Coaches coach and control timeouts and subs. VT wins the Natty.

Kinda /s?

Deja vu all over again

We know that heart damage is being reported in some Covid patients. And we know that medical screenings and electrocardiograms of college football players are revealing Myocarditis in some of the recovered players. Some of the reporting suggests that the myocarditis is being found in a small number of players who presented with symptoms. But I have seen some reports suggesting it has even been diagnose in some players who did not present with symptoms.

The article below has me wondering whether Covid is actually causing myocarditis in these players or if one of the following explanations may apply: 1) Electrocardiograms are not typical for college athlete physicals, but because they are being conducted post-Covid infection we are finding what would otherwise be undiagnosed cases of myocarditis. 2) Maybe Covid alone is not causing myocarditis, but the conditions for it are present pre-Covid and bring the condition forward (i.e. make it worse, exacerbate) during and post-infection

I think 1) is certainly possible in some of the players, especially possible for those who never presented with symptoms during infection. I think 2) is likely, which just makes the data collection all the more important. Hopefully the NCAA or the conferences or some set of schools work together in collecting all the data among college and pro athletes. I know it is not easy, but if they play in the Fall or even in the Spring, making the electrocardiograms standard for all players makes sense. That way, you would have electrocardiogram results both pre- and post- Covid. I have no idea what an electrocardiogram really is, so not sure if what I am saying makes sense. But I thought this was an interesting article and that I hope there is follow through, because we can actually learn a lot about Covid from the college and pro athletes. Most of them are recovering, they are in general terms very healthy individuals, and they are very accustomed to regular medical screenings and physical tests, etc. The resources to monitor and study any short and long term effects of Covid are available.

Myocarditis

While we often associate cardiovascular conditions with elderly populations, myocarditis can affect anyone, including young adults, children and infants. In fact, it most often affects otherwise healthy, young, athletic types with the high-risk population being those of ages from puberty through their early 30's, affecting males twice as often as females. Myocarditis is the 3rd leading cause of Sudden Death in children and young adults.

I'm a physician in the Air Force and we're seeing lots of patients who have recovered from COVID (symptomatic) present with signs of myocarditis afterwards. COVID-19 is NOT a respiratory illness - the virus actually attaches to receptors in the blood vessels, meaning it can affect virtually any part of the body and cause symptoms, including the heart. It is a VASCULAR virus. We are actually putting exercise restrictions on all of our former COVID patients to "ease" them back into physical activity after recovery, in addition to other cardiac testing. If I were a professional or collegiate athlete, the potential of myocarditis and how it could affect my career long term would scare the shit out of me. We are seeing significant exercise intolerance, shortness of breath with exertion, and fatigue after recovery - these are not just anecdotes. As much as I love the Hokies and want to see them play this season, from a legal and ethical standpoint, I don't see how we field a team this season with this myocarditis issue looming.

Tyrod did it Mikey!

Appreciate this tidbit, very interesting. Has there been a lot of communication about this throughout the medical community, or recently gaining traction?

In the Air Force community, we are just starting wake up to this - we are currently amending processes for our post-COVID patients. The risk of myocarditis could have a significant impact on our ability to deploy people.

Tyrod did it Mikey!

these are not just anecdotes

Coming at this from a place of curiosity, not questioning you - what do the percentages look like? How serious is myocarditis (realistic best case/worse case)?

Twitter me

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2766124

This article is particularly interesting in its application to fall sports. "For athletes who are positive for COVID-19 and develop mild or moderate symptoms, we recommend a minimum of 2 weeks' cessation of any exercise training from symptom resolution."

Tough to make a call on percentages of those NOT hospitalized - but this article postulates that up to 1/4 of all hospitalized COVID patients will develop myocarditis.

Tyrod did it Mikey!

So are SARS and MERS respiratory or were they also vascular? Thanks for the info.

All three coronaviruses are primarily transmitted through the respiratory route, however COVID-19 differs in that it causes significant endothelial damage by binding to receptors in the blood vessels. The lungs just happen to be a huge capillary bed, which is why it was initially thought to be a respiratory virus.

Through this mechanism, COVID is now known to cause small blood clots all over the body during infection. Scary stuff, my friends.

Tyrod did it Mikey!

I am just empathetic for the players. No matter what, they lose. Either they lose a season, or they may have an abnormal risk to their health. "Everyone is told they can't play the kids game anymore. Some at 13, some at 18, some at 40. But, we are all told" holds true. That time goes by fast.

Five star get after it 100 percent Juice Key-Playing. MAN

Great quote. I feel for them too. What a mess.

Has Bill Roth weighed in? I feel like we need him to drop the truth on us.

I may have missed it skimming through but has anyone brought up the new ordinance in Blacksburg? How can it work with groups limited to 50 or less. Or can the school have its own ordinances?

Posted it in Covid thread. But to cross it over the school as a state institution doesn't have to follow town rules on school property. It's why for example the Blacksburg fire department doesn't get to inspect VT buildings for fire code violations.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Still not sure what "We Want Top Lay" means and at this point I'm afraid to ask

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

Was about to say this. Kudos to you, AXD1985