(11-28-2020 02:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-28-2020 01:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2020 01:22 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

Ridiculous to cancel so late. Pure contract-tracing nonsense. Just keep the afflicted players out of the game.

How inconsiderate of them to interfere so late with my choice whether to watch that game in the safety of my den or choose to watch some other game. If players aren't willing to risk their health they have no business playing the game in the first place. Like it or not, football is they single most important activity for Americans, and the game itself must be protected or it will never survive.

FWIW, I have zero problem with players choosing not to play because of the virus, whether they test positive or not, and if they choose to not play they should keep their scholarships and eligibility, and if too many players choose not to play and the game can't be played, no problem.

But I think the issue here isn't games being canceled because players are choosing not to play. It's the opposite - players want to play, and are being prevented from doing so by administrators, etc.

(11-28-2020 03:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The game is a tangible loss. Whether anyone's health would be affected by playing vs not playing it is entirely unknown.

We DO KNOW that players/staff from one team will not get sick from the players/staff on the other team.

Boise State blue turf game was on FOX and gets yanked. That would have been great exposure.

(11-28-2020 04:02 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(11-28-2020 03:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The game is a tangible loss. Whether anyone's health would be affected by playing vs not playing it is entirely unknown.

We DO KNOW that players/staff from one team will not get sick from the players/staff on the other team.

But that's a very minor thing to know, given all the other ways they might get sick. Anyway, let the players decide, as they are the ones who directly stand to get sick.

(11-28-2020 04:54 PM)CaliGlowin Wrote:  Boise State blue turf game was on FOX and gets yanked. That would have been great exposure.

Yes, and it was a very good matchup as well. SJST is still unbeaten, and this was a chance to play a better than average team.

Looks like the final total for this week was 19 games canceled/postponed. That is a one-game increase over last week. But we also had two new games created as a result, so a net loss of 17 games, one fewer than last week.

At least this represents a kind of leveling off, after several weeks of sharp increases in canceled games.

already have 1st one for next week- Miami/Wake Forest is bagged.

(11-28-2020 05:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2020 04:02 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(11-28-2020 03:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The game is a tangible loss. Whether anyone's health would be affected by playing vs not playing it is entirely unknown.

We DO KNOW that players/staff from one team will not get sick from the players/staff on the other team.

But that's a very minor thing to know, given all the other ways they might get sick. Anyway, let the players decide, as they are the ones who directly stand to get sick.

It's SJSU not SJST

get it right

The people in this thread like Quo, wants the virus to spread that can wind up costing people's lives.

(11-28-2020 04:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2020 02:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-28-2020 01:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2020 01:22 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

Ridiculous to cancel so late. Pure contract-tracing nonsense. Just keep the afflicted players out of the game.

How inconsiderate of them to interfere so late with my choice whether to watch that game in the safety of my den or choose to watch some other game. If players aren't willing to risk their health they have no business playing the game in the first place. Like it or not, football is they single most important activity for Americans, and the game itself must be protected or it will never survive.

FWIW, I have zero problem with players choosing not to play because of the virus, whether they test positive or not, and if they choose to not play they should keep their scholarships and eligibility, and if too many players choose not to play and the game can't be played, no problem.

But I think the issue here isn't games being canceled because players are choosing not to play. It's the opposite - players want to play, and are being prevented from doing so by administrators, etc.

:coffee3:

I think you are really missing what is my much bigger point. Of course players would decide to play. They are, after all, males whose brains are not yet fully developed in a way that makes them make poor decisions. They have no place in the decision at all.

But the bigger point is that, culturally, football is so dominant that we Americans are, collectively, willing to accept some level of death rather than deprive fans of their amusement. We will never be able to know whether, had some of the cancelled games been played despite the risk, anyone would die. But even if we could know, we would consider that death an acceptable price to pay. And frankly, I think we would accept a pretty significant number of deaths. Football is that important to our national psyche.