(01-10-2021 04:17 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 02:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 11:48 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Here's a New York Times article asking "was it worth it"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/30/magaz...demic.html

I would say a lot of FBS schools probably would have wished they didn't play the season. I kind of wished Illinois didn't play. I'm sure Lovie Smith wishes they didn't play. I wish Penn State didn't play. James Franklin had to be away from his family for the season. Was it worth it for him? Harbaugh got an extension but lost a ton of money because of this season. Gus Malzahn lost his job. LSU looks a lot worse. Not everyone came out like Ohio State or Alabama or even Coastal Carolina.

I would say had Ohio State not beaten Clemson I would've said the Big Ten football season would've been a waste of time and in reality we go through a whole season, a whole bunch of postponements and cancellations just to see another damn Alabama-Clemson championship game I'd say the whole season would've been a waste of time.

The Pac-12 season was a waste of time. So was the MAC. I forgot who won the conference. San Jose State was kind of a good story out of the MWC and I have family in the Bay Area so maybe that was worth it.

You seem to base "worth it" on how well a team or conference performed. That's strange to me, because using that standard every season is not worth it to a ton of teams and conferences, the ones that had losing seasons. Not every team and conference can have a winning year. Every game, there is a winner and a loser.

To me, the season absolutely was worth it, because thousands of players got to play football, and thousands of fans like us got to watch and enjoy.

Right. A league’s strength this season doesn’t even register as a factor of whether this season was worth it.

How many players, coaches, people associated with the football team got COVID-19 because of football this season? Nick Saban, Ryan Day, Trevor Lawrence at least tested positive and those are just the big names. I don't know how sick Saban got. He's 69 years old, he could have died. Now he's probably going to say it's worth the risk but he has a great chance to win a national championship. Why should another 69 year old head coach or assistant risk his life for a sub .500 season so a few hundred thousand people can watch a G5 game on ESPU on a Saturday afternoon? Michigan played this year and didn't play Ohio State. What's the point? Florida State played this year and didn't play Florida or Clemson. They had plenty of COVID-19 issues and had Dabo Swinney question their character. Clemson traveled to Florida State for a game only to cancel. Of course the season was worth it to them. Then the following week Virginia had the same thing happen to them. Is that fun? There were tons of hassles this season. You have to ask was it worth it? You don't ask these questions in a normal season. In a normal season, fans fill stadiums, campus restaurants, hotels, bars, etc. Campus towns like Columbus and Tuscaloosa make tons of money on football Saturdays. They didn't this year. So for all the headache and people getting sick and possibly dying, I think it is reasonable to ask if the season was worth it? If you're a fan and you don't have to leave your couch to watch them you don't get to decide whether it's worth it. People like Nick Saban and Trevor Lawrence are the ones that have the right to say whether or not it was worth it.

It's important to know how they contracted the disease. For all we know, they may have gotten it at church, which totally changes the whole "was it worth it" argument...

(01-10-2021 06:47 PM)schmolik Wrote:  How many players, coaches, people associated with the football team got COVID-19 because of football this season? Nick Saban, Ryan Day, Trevor Lawrence at least tested positive and those are just the big names.People like Nick Saban and Trevor Lawrence are the ones that have the right to say whether or not it was worth it.

You're assuming they wouldn't have gotten the virus had there been no football, and that they got it because of football, neither of which is known.

And, if we asked Saban and Lawrence and Day whether they thought the season was worth it, I'm betting all three say yes. But that's an assumption too. But I think so anyway.

(01-09-2021 12:56 AM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  Nope.

To go further, I'm honestly not sure ANY of the arguments for continued lockdowns have held any water.

Other than 250,000 new cases a day, 3,500 deaths a day

And yes, the football season was a huge mistake

(01-10-2021 10:54 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 12:56 AM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  Nope.

To go further, I'm honestly not sure ANY of the arguments for continued lockdowns have held any water.

Other than 250,000 new cases a day, 3,500 deaths a day

And yes, the football season was a huge mistake

England is in national lockdown #3 but they've still had a higher % of their population die. The safety measures can only do so much to slow it down, but ultimately we're just going to have to deal with it until it's gone.

The only problem with football season was the lack of consistency among conferences. It proved to be plenty safe for everyone involved.

(01-10-2021 01:59 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 11:20 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Excuse me if these points have already been covered, but here is my take.

1) I argued going into the season that the risk to players from participating was no greater than remaining in the general population. Indeed, it may even be lower since they would be tested regularly and would have a strong incentive to behave responsibly so that they could continue playing. Whether this turned out to be accurate requires additional study, but I have seen no evidence otherwise. Further, I have seen no evidence that participating in games was a source of transmission.
2) Starting the season on time appears to have been a much better strategy than delaying the start. The earlier start allowed windows for make up games due to postponements and allowed most schools starting by the end of September to complete the vast majority of their schedules. Further, most postponements appear to have been the result of quarantine requirements, not widespread outbreaks.
3) Cancellation or postponement of the entire season by lower division conferences did make sense. The cost of complying with Covid protocols was high, and the lack of TV and bowl revenue to support this expense and other avoidable operating expenses justified these decisions.

I would challenge that there weren’t widespread outbreaks as many teams had situations with multiple players getting sick. I think Baylor had 30 positives at one time at some point during the season. My main concern wasn’t that people might get sick, it’s a pandemic it will happen, but rather how sick someone gets. College age individuals have a very high survival and recovery rate without hospitalization. Overall, the players seemed to handle it very well and the horror stories that some expected could occur never arose.

To be clear, I'm not saying that there weren't outbreaks or that the virus was not spread, for instance, in the locker room. I'm saying that the spread among those participating, including players, coaches and support staff, was no worse than if those folks had been out in the general population. If research shows otherwise, I will stand corrected.

(01-09-2021 11:48 AM)schmolik Wrote:  The Pac-12 season was a waste of time. So was the MAC. I forgot who won the conference. San Jose State was kind of a good story out of the MWC and I have family in the Bay Area so maybe that was worth it.

I think the PAC-12 should have started their season at least two weeks sooner and should not have been looking to the Big Ten for guidance. But all things considered, the season turned out okay. For UCLA, they went 3-4 with all four losses by six points or less. They could have gone 7-0 with the elimination of some turnovers. They were 12th in the nation in rushing offense, 20th in scoring offense and 21st in total offense. Bruin fans got to finally see the team coming together under Chip Kelly.

There were no games on the PAC-12 Network, which was an added benefit to schools, particularly UCLA. In 2019, UCLA played six games in the Rose Bowl and four were on the PAC-12 Network, games that few end up watching. The other two were on Fox and FS1, with the FS1 game a 7:30 local time start. This season, UCLA had four home games on FS1, FOX, ABC and ESPN, and no game started later than 5 pm local time, which helps with a national audience.

The shortened PAC-12 season did not affect football recruiting, with Oregon at No.6 in the nation and USC at No.8 in the nation. The players that did play this season got a chance to show their talents to NFL scouts, so that helped. Plus, the schools got some revenue out of this season, which helps.

If there wasn't the structure provided by college football this past fall (scripted day-to-day lives that involved testing, safe practicing, social distancing outside of football activities, responsibility to follow guidelines outside the football program, etc.), who's to say that that these student-athletes and coaches would have been more likely to ignore all of these expectations, likely causing more people to not follow social distancing guidelines and, as a result, increase the COVID numbers within the state and nationwide? College football provided a safe and structured outlet - one that allowed for ample testing, contract tracing and quarantining - for its participants during a pandemic. The responsibility to play college football created ample opportunities for participants to follow these guidelines and get access to COVID prevention and treatment than they would not have had if they chose not to play. For a great number of student-athletes, being on a college campus is safer than being home, and in a COVID-world, this remains true.

(01-10-2021 06:47 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 04:17 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(01-10-2021 02:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 11:48 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Here's a New York Times article asking "was it worth it"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/30/magaz...demic.html

I would say a lot of FBS schools probably would have wished they didn't play the season. I kind of wished Illinois didn't play. I'm sure Lovie Smith wishes they didn't play. I wish Penn State didn't play. James Franklin had to be away from his family for the season. Was it worth it for him? Harbaugh got an extension but lost a ton of money because of this season. Gus Malzahn lost his job. LSU looks a lot worse. Not everyone came out like Ohio State or Alabama or even Coastal Carolina.

I would say had Ohio State not beaten Clemson I would've said the Big Ten football season would've been a waste of time and in reality we go through a whole season, a whole bunch of postponements and cancellations just to see another damn Alabama-Clemson championship game I'd say the whole season would've been a waste of time.

The Pac-12 season was a waste of time. So was the MAC. I forgot who won the conference. San Jose State was kind of a good story out of the MWC and I have family in the Bay Area so maybe that was worth it.

You seem to base "worth it" on how well a team or conference performed. That's strange to me, because using that standard every season is not worth it to a ton of teams and conferences, the ones that had losing seasons. Not every team and conference can have a winning year. Every game, there is a winner and a loser.

To me, the season absolutely was worth it, because thousands of players got to play football, and thousands of fans like us got to watch and enjoy.

Right. A league’s strength this season doesn’t even register as a factor of whether this season was worth it.

How many players, coaches, people associated with the football team got COVID-19 because of football this season? Nick Saban, Ryan Day, Trevor Lawrence at least tested positive and those are just the big names. I don't know how sick Saban got. He's 69 years old, he could have died. Now he's probably going to say it's worth the risk but he has a great chance to win a national championship. Why should another 69 year old head coach or assistant risk his life for a sub .500 season so a few hundred thousand people can watch a G5 game on ESPU on a Saturday afternoon? Michigan played this year and didn't play Ohio State. What's the point? Florida State played this year and didn't play Florida or Clemson. They had plenty of COVID-19 issues and had Dabo Swinney question their character. Clemson traveled to Florida State for a game only to cancel. Of course the season was worth it to them. Then the following week Virginia had the same thing happen to them. Is that fun? There were tons of hassles this season. You have to ask was it worth it? You don't ask these questions in a normal season. In a normal season, fans fill stadiums, campus restaurants, hotels, bars, etc. Campus towns like Columbus and Tuscaloosa make tons of money on football Saturdays. They didn't this year. So for all the headache and people getting sick and possibly dying, I think it is reasonable to ask if the season was worth it? If you're a fan and you don't have to leave your couch to watch them you don't get to decide whether it's worth it. People like Nick Saban and Trevor Lawrence are the ones that have the right to say whether or not it was worth it.

Based upon the information I've heard Trevor Lawrence's exposure came from family or friends, not football. Do you have any indication that any of the other exposures you listed were football related?

(01-11-2021 03:35 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If there wasn't the structure provided by college football this past fall (scripted day-to-day lives that involved testing, safe practicing, social distancing outside of football activities, responsibility to follow guidelines outside the football program, etc.), who's to say that that these student-athletes and coaches would have been more likely to ignore all of these expectations, likely causing more people to not follow social distancing guidelines and, as a result, increase the COVID numbers within the state and nationwide? College football provided a safe and structured outlet - one that allowed for ample testing, contract tracing and quarantining - for its participants during a pandemic. The responsibility to play college football created ample opportunities for participants to follow these guidelines and get access to COVID prevention and treatment than they would not have had if they chose not to play. For a great number of student-athletes, being on a college campus is safer than being home, and in a COVID-world, this remains true.

Was there some structural reason that student-athletes couldn't be provided ample testing, contact tracing and quarantining if they didn't participate in athletics in Fall 2020? Were there schools which didn't quarantine positive cases on campus or which didn't undertake contact tracing? Didn't most schools offer - and in some cases even broadly mandate - regular access to testing?

(01-14-2021 10:11 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 03:35 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If there wasn't the structure provided by college football this past fall (scripted day-to-day lives that involved testing, safe practicing, social distancing outside of football activities, responsibility to follow guidelines outside the football program, etc.), who's to say that that these student-athletes and coaches would have been more likely to ignore all of these expectations, likely causing more people to not follow social distancing guidelines and, as a result, increase the COVID numbers within the state and nationwide? College football provided a safe and structured outlet - one that allowed for ample testing, contract tracing and quarantining - for its participants during a pandemic. The responsibility to play college football created ample opportunities for participants to follow these guidelines and get access to COVID prevention and treatment than they would not have had if they chose not to play. For a great number of student-athletes, being on a college campus is safer than being home, and in a COVID-world, this remains true.

Was there some structural reason that student-athletes couldn't be provided ample testing, contact tracing and quarantining if they didn't participate in athletics in Fall 2020? Were there schools which didn't quarantine positive cases on campus or which didn't undertake contact tracing? Didn't most schools offer - and in some cases even broadly mandate - regular access to testing?

It seems pretty obvious that it is easier to implement protocols and tracing and testing among a smaller group of discrete people - like say a football team - than among a more general mass population.

Ask those who really had the most to give and the least to gain...the players as they were the ones who gave up the most.

The ADs. coaching staffs, athletic department staff, broadcasters, et al got paid while the players didn't and were basically sequestered for nearly seven months.

There were what, 20+ teams whose players wanted out after the regular season and said no to bowl games? That makes me think that what they signed up for was much different from what they went through.

The tabling of both NIL and transfer decisions from the NCAA this week proved that especially with the revenue sports, those who provide the labor are on the very back burner and not considered at all. Protocols were changes with some schools and in other situations teams were in a meeting room on the road before games were canceled.

(01-14-2021 11:33 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  Ask those who really had the most to give and the least to gain...the players as they were the ones who gave up the most.

The ADs. coaching staffs, athletic department staff, broadcasters, et al got paid while the players didn't and were basically sequestered for nearly seven months.

There were what, 20+ teams whose players wanted out after the regular season and said no to bowl games? That makes me think that what they signed up for was much different from what they went through.

The tabling of both NIL and transfer decisions from the NCAA this week proved that especially with the revenue sports, those who provide the labor are on the very back burner and not considered at all. Protocols were changes with some schools and in other situations teams were in a meeting room on the road before games were canceled.

The fact that the overwhelming number of players chose to play seems like strong evidence that the players did believe the season was worth it.

(01-14-2021 11:33 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  Ask those who really had the most to give and the least to gain...the players as they were the ones who gave up the most.

Well, that settles it overwhelmingly then, considering 98% of them chose to play.

(01-16-2021 04:46 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(01-14-2021 11:33 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  Ask those who really had the most to give and the least to gain...the players as they were the ones who gave up the most.

Well, that settles it overwhelmingly then, considering 98% of them chose to play.

I hope that happened because it wasn’t coerced in any way. I’d hate to hear stories coming out about COVID being leveraged in any way to get kids to play or lose a spot on their team. It’s to a point where that’s what I anticipate hearing about in the not too distant future because that is how low I think of football operations and the NCAA.

I do believe so many wanted to be out there and believe in the spirit of team camaraderie. But I also believe that one bad egg can spoil the proverbial bunch, too.

(01-16-2021 07:28 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-16-2021 04:46 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(01-14-2021 11:33 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  Ask those who really had the most to give and the least to gain...the players as they were the ones who gave up the most.

Well, that settles it overwhelmingly then, considering 98% of them chose to play.

I hope that happened because it wasn’t coerced in any way. I’d hate to hear stories coming out about COVID being leveraged in any way to get kids to play or lose a spot on their team. It’s to a point where that’s what I anticipate hearing about in the not too distant future because that is how low I think of football operations and the NCAA.

I do believe so many wanted to be out there and believe in the spirit of team camaraderie. But I also believe that one bad egg can spoil the proverbial bunch, too.

I don't think anyone can seriously doubt that the vast majority of players wanted to play football this past fall. As for pressure, the NCAA and every conference said players could opt out and keep their scholarship and retain their year of eligibility. You can't take pressure off much more than that.

IIRC, about 150 players ended up opting out. That's not even the roster of two FBS teams. So the huge majority chose to play.

(01-14-2021 10:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-14-2021 10:11 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 03:35 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If there wasn't the structure provided by college football this past fall (scripted day-to-day lives that involved testing, safe practicing, social distancing outside of football activities, responsibility to follow guidelines outside the football program, etc.), who's to say that that these student-athletes and coaches would have been more likely to ignore all of these expectations, likely causing more people to not follow social distancing guidelines and, as a result, increase the COVID numbers within the state and nationwide? College football provided a safe and structured outlet - one that allowed for ample testing, contract tracing and quarantining - for its participants during a pandemic. The responsibility to play college football created ample opportunities for participants to follow these guidelines and get access to COVID prevention and treatment than they would not have had if they chose not to play. For a great number of student-athletes, being on a college campus is safer than being home, and in a COVID-world, this remains true.

Was there some structural reason that student-athletes couldn't be provided ample testing, contact tracing and quarantining if they didn't participate in athletics in Fall 2020? Were there schools which didn't quarantine positive cases on campus or which didn't undertake contact tracing? Didn't most schools offer - and in some cases even broadly mandate - regular access to testing?

It seems pretty obvious that it is easier to implement protocols and tracing and testing among a smaller group of discrete people - like say a football team - than among a more general mass population.

Definitely easier. But pretty much every college did it, right? Do we have any examples of FBS schools where only football players with Covid were quarantined but other ill students stayed in the same dorm to infect well students?

(01-16-2021 04:14 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  

(01-14-2021 10:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-14-2021 10:11 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 03:35 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If there wasn't the structure provided by college football this past fall (scripted day-to-day lives that involved testing, safe practicing, social distancing outside of football activities, responsibility to follow guidelines outside the football program, etc.), who's to say that that these student-athletes and coaches would have been more likely to ignore all of these expectations, likely causing more people to not follow social distancing guidelines and, as a result, increase the COVID numbers within the state and nationwide? College football provided a safe and structured outlet - one that allowed for ample testing, contract tracing and quarantining - for its participants during a pandemic. The responsibility to play college football created ample opportunities for participants to follow these guidelines and get access to COVID prevention and treatment than they would not have had if they chose not to play. For a great number of student-athletes, being on a college campus is safer than being home, and in a COVID-world, this remains true.

Was there some structural reason that student-athletes couldn't be provided ample testing, contact tracing and quarantining if they didn't participate in athletics in Fall 2020? Were there schools which didn't quarantine positive cases on campus or which didn't undertake contact tracing? Didn't most schools offer - and in some cases even broadly mandate - regular access to testing?

It seems pretty obvious that it is easier to implement protocols and tracing and testing among a smaller group of discrete people - like say a football team - than among a more general mass population.

Definitely easier. But pretty much every college did it, right? Do we have any examples of FBS schools where only football players with Covid were quarantined but other ill students stayed in the same dorm to infect well students?

I have no idea.

(01-14-2021 11:33 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  There were what, 20+ teams whose players wanted out after the regular season and said no to bowl games? That makes me think that what they signed up for was much different from what they signed up for.

I think this is a great point, and like much with Covid we may not know the answer for some time. I did hear stories of kids - and this was hardest for the freshmen - who were basically separated from their families from July through December and were feeling very homesick. But turning down a low level bowl game does not necessarily equate with regretting the decision to play in the first place. It will be interesting to hear the reflections of these players a few years from now.

One thing I’ll add is that players want to play. They play despite things more devastating than Covid (among their age group) like concussions, and will lie about symptoms to stay in the game. So I doubt anyone had to pressure kids to get them back out on the field.

As far as I’ve heard only one college football player died from covid this year, and he was at a school that didn’t even play, so football was not the cause of infection.

Were scholarships honored? If do, players got something during COID.