• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Poll: Will College Sports Be Cancelled for the 2020-21 School Year?

Will College Sports Be Canceled for the 2020-21 school year?

  • College sports will not be canceled & will resume as normal in the fall

    Votes: 60 31.6%
  • All College sports will be canceled for the entire school year

    Votes: 29 15.3%
  • Fall Sports will be canceled, Winter & Spring Sports will be played as normal

    Votes: 28 14.7%
  • Fall & Winter Sports will be canceled, but Spring Sports will be played as Normal

    Votes: 33 17.4%
  • All Sports will be played for tv but no fans will be allowed to attend

    Votes: 32 16.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 8 4.2%

  • Total voters
    190
The ACC's expert says this can be managed

the NCAA seems to be abdicating responsibility here - let's get the B1G's medical experts in a room with this guy from Duke, and whomever the SEC is consulting with, and whomever else we need to talk with, and reach a consensus, rather than every conference making their own decision

Why should we listen to some blowhard from the Big Ten when his own schools aren't even on board ?
 
I have talked to several D3 athletes with no hope of a professional career, and each of them desperately wants to play this year, and each one is upset to watch a year of eligibility slip away. They generally are better informed about the pandemic and the risks as a general member of the public. I understand that the ACC and SEC moving forward with football (and don't forget other Fall sports which are non-revenue) can be spun to promote the narrative that colleges are just using the athletes, but athletes simply want to play regardless of the level or their pro prospects if reasonable precautions are taken.

There seem to be two questions that have to be addressed as part of the decision-making process to move forward or not:

1) Are athletes safer if they are kept in a training/playing environment or are they safer with sport shutdown? The anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that they are safer in training/playing environment as the almost all of the positive tests have arisen when the players first reported to school (LSU, Clemson, L'ville) with very few positive tests once the players were quarantined and practice started.

2) Does the sport lend itself to increased risk by playing the sport? Football creates the most risk because contact is an essential element of the sport. So, limiting that risk will be dependent upon a reliable testing program when the games do begin. It also helps that fewer teams are playing, as that limits the pool of potentially infected players. Frankly, I would bag the ODU game as I doubt that ODU has the resources in place to test and isolate players like ACC schools would.

The season will start. WF will play Clemson in less than a month, but it seems inevitable that at least a few teams (like the Marlins and Cardinals in MLB) will have an outbreak. Given the scrutiny that the sport is already facing for moving forward and those trying to use the decision to move forward to criticize college sports, college football will shutdown after a few games.
 
I have talked to several D3 athletes with no hope of a professional career, and each of them desperately wants to play this year, and each one is upset to watch a year of eligibility slip away. They generally are better informed about the pandemic and the risks as a general member of the public. I understand that the ACC and SEC moving forward with football (and don't forget other Fall sports which are non-revenue) can be spun to promote the narrative that colleges are just using the athletes, but athletes simply want to play regardless of the level or their pro prospects if reasonable precautions are taken.

There seem to be two questions that have to be addressed as part of the decision-making process to move forward or not:

1) Are athletes safer if they are kept in a training/playing environment or are they safer with sport shutdown? The anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that they are safer in training/playing environment as the almost all of the positive tests have arisen when the players first reported to school (LSU, Clemson, L'ville) with very few positive tests once the players were quarantined and practice started.

2) Does the sport lend itself to increased risk by playing the sport? Football creates the most risk because contact is an essential element of the sport. So, limiting that risk will be dependent upon a reliable testing program when the games do begin. It also helps that fewer teams are playing, as that limits the pool of potentially infected players. Frankly, I would bag the ODU game as I doubt that ODU has the resources in place to test and isolate players like ACC schools would.

The season will start. WF will play Clemson in less than a month, but it seems inevitable that at least a few teams (like the Marlins and Cardinals in MLB) will have an outbreak. Given the scrutiny that the sport is already facing for moving forward and those trying to use the decision to move forward to criticize college sports, college football will shutdown after a few games.

ODU canceled their season yesterday, so that's taken care of.
 
The ACC's expert says this can be managed

the NCAA seems to be abdicating responsibility here - let's get the B1G's medical experts in a room with this guy from Duke, and whomever the SEC is consulting with, and whomever else we need to talk with, and reach a consensus, rather than every conference making their own decision

Of course the NCAA is abdicating responsibility, that's their modus operandi. And it would be damn near impossible to reach a consensus on anything COVID-related because we don't know anything. The B1G has reported multiple cases of myocarditis from COVID-positive athletes. We don't yet know all of the short-term effects of COVID let alone the long-term effects but we do know that it has the potential to be life-threatening even in otherwise healthy, young individuals and that the after-effects can linger for months. I'm sure the ACC doctor has a decent basis for thinking it can be managed but just think about how that is phrased:

'You can't tell me that running onto a football field is supposed to be a zero-risk environment,' Wolfe continued. 'Look at all of the regular sporting injuries that we accept as a certain level of risk as part and parcel of football. Now the reality is that we have to accept a little bit of COVID risk to be a part of that.'

The guy who made the call is analogizing contracting COVID with regular football-related injuries (a whole different can of worms) as a way to say that the risk is "worth it". That doesn't make me feel better about how the decision was made at all. We shouldn't be "managing" a football season during COVID, we should have had contingency plans laid out months ago. All it takes is for one kid on a team somewhere to have an unknown underlying condition that is exacerbated by COVID to die and we are going to look back at this and think of how stupid it was to try to play sports during an ongoing pandemic that isn't getting any better because we can't fucking do the simple things it would take to start the recovery process.
 
I have talked to several D3 athletes with no hope of a professional career, and each of them desperately wants to play this year, and each one is upset to watch a year of eligibility slip away. They generally are better informed about the pandemic and the risks as a general member of the public. I understand that the ACC and SEC moving forward with football (and don't forget other Fall sports which are non-revenue) can be spun to promote the narrative that colleges are just using the athletes, but athletes simply want to play regardless of the level or their pro prospects if reasonable precautions are taken.

There seem to be two questions that have to be addressed as part of the decision-making process to move forward or not:

1) Are athletes safer if they are kept in a training/playing environment or are they safer with sport shutdown? The anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that they are safer in training/playing environment as the almost all of the positive tests have arisen when the players first reported to school (LSU, Clemson, L'ville) with very few positive tests once the players were quarantined and practice started.

2) Does the sport lend itself to increased risk by playing the sport? Football creates the most risk because contact is an essential element of the sport. So, limiting that risk will be dependent upon a reliable testing program when the games do begin. It also helps that fewer teams are playing, as that limits the pool of potentially infected players. Frankly, I would bag the ODU game as I doubt that ODU has the resources in place to test and isolate players like ACC schools would.

The season will start. WF will play Clemson in less than a month, but it seems inevitable that at least a few teams (like the Marlins and Cardinals in MLB) will have an outbreak. Given the scrutiny that the sport is already facing for moving forward and those trying to use the decision to move forward to criticize college sports, college football will shutdown after a few games.

I work in D1 not D3 so there might be some slight differences but at least at the D1 level, athletes won't lose any eligibility if the season is canceled just like those that would have had a chance to participate in spring sports were given back their year of eligibility after their championships were canceled.

Also the question still isn't about whether the participation in the sport is the problem, it's the other 12 hours a day where they are not practicing or competing. I am in a state that has had an awful response to COVID and you can still go out and eat in restaurants and other places where masks are encouraged but not necessarily required in every location. The likelihood that any team in my state that tries to continue to have football won't have any outbreaks seems very low to me once all students are back on campus. It'll just take one outbreak in the Big 12/ACC/SEC to shut this all down for good and that seems incredibly likely.
 
The problem for D3 athletes is not that they lose their eligibility, but that they have to pay for another year of school which often is not an option. So, while the NCAA will allow D3 athletes to comeback next year to play, there is no money to pay for a 5th year of college. In the alternative, D3 athletes can take a gap year, but this is not the best environment to find work, and many don't want to wait another year before graduating.
 
I work in D1 not D3 so there might be some slight differences but at least at the D1 level, athletes won't lose any eligibility if the season is canceled just like those that would have had a chance to participate in spring sports were given back their year of eligibility after their championships were canceled.

Also the question still isn't about whether the participation in the sport is the problem, it's the other 12 hours a day where they are not practicing or competing. I am in a state that has had an awful response to COVID and you can still go out and eat in restaurants and other places where masks are encouraged but not necessarily required in every location. The likelihood that any team in my state that tries to continue to have football won't have any outbreaks seems very low to me once all students are back on campus. It'll just take one outbreak in the Big 12/ACC/SEC to shut this all down for good and that seems incredibly likely.

I mean, the 37 positives (that we know about) at both UNC and Clemson are very much outbreaks...
 
The problem for D3 athletes is not that they lose their eligibility, but that they have to pay for another year of school which often is not an option. So, while the NCAA will allow D3 athletes to comeback next year to play, there is no money to pay for a 5th year of college. In the alternative, D3 athletes can take a gap year, but this is not the best environment to find work, and many don't want to wait another year before graduating.

Yeah I get that, it's a shitty situation at that level. I echo what I said here in that I truly feel for them but that's the situation we are in.
 
I mean, the 37 positives (that we know about) at both UNC and Clemson are very much outbreaks...

There were numerous positives at my school as well in addition to at other schools in our conference. But what I'm saying is that in 2-3 weeks when games are about to start and then we find out that Oklahoma State or Virginia or Auburn just had double digit positives come back and we don't have contact tracing set up, that's all she wrote.
 
Of course the NCAA is abdicating responsibility, that's their modus operandi. And it would be damn near impossible to reach a consensus on anything COVID-related because we don't know anything. The B1G has reported multiple cases of myocarditis from COVID-positive athletes. We don't yet know all of the short-term effects of COVID let alone the long-term effects but we do know that it has the potential to be life-threatening even in otherwise healthy, young individuals and that the after-effects can linger for months. I'm sure the ACC doctor has a decent basis for thinking it can be managed but just think about how that is phrased:



The guy who made the call is analogizing contracting COVID with regular football-related injuries (a whole different can of worms) as a way to say that the risk is "worth it". That doesn't make me feel better about how the decision was made at all. We shouldn't be "managing" a football season during COVID, we should have had contingency plans laid out months ago. All it takes is for one kid on a team somewhere to have an unknown underlying condition that is exacerbated by COVID to die and we are going to look back at this and think of how stupid it was to try to play sports during an ongoing pandemic that isn't getting any better because we can't fucking do the simple things it would take to start the recovery process.

so let's talk about myocarditis with the ACC's experts

personally, I don't think we should have college football, period, because we know beyond a doubt that concussions lead to CTE. I mean, that's proven science with consensus! Yet we play football. It's ok though, because when a player uses his head as a weapon and gives himself and some other dude a concussion (shortening both of their lives) we kick that player out of the game, usually.

Oh, and regarding the extra year of eligibility - as I stated before, in the case that I'm aware of, and probably 90+% of D3 athletes, an extra year doesn't mean squat. Non-revenue sport athletes are in school to get an education and pursue their sport. After 4 years, it's time to move on.
 
so let's talk about myocarditis with the ACC's experts

personally, I don't think we should have college football, period, because we know beyond a doubt that concussions lead to CTE. I mean, that's proven science with consensus! Yet we play football. It's ok though, because when a player uses his head as a weapon and gives himself and some other dude a concussion (shortening both of their lives) we kick that player out of the game, usually.

Oh, and regarding the extra year of eligibility - as I stated before, in the case that I'm aware of, and probably 90+% of D3 athletes, an extra year doesn't mean squat. Non-revenue sport athletes are in school to get an education and pursue their sport. After 4 years, it's time to move on.

Well I am about as avid advocate for banning football as any reasonable human is, so I agree that football is stupid in any regard. And re: the extra year of eligibility, my only point was that the year of eligibility would still be available to them should they have a way to utilize it, I am aware that there will be numerous cases where that is not feasible.
 
^too many concussions

The Croc Hunter went out on top; Paul Hogan just kinda faded away

Sad !
 
FFS.

I just put Gooner and thatguy2016 on ignore.

Holy shit, I couldn't even get RJ to put me on ignore in 2+ years of heavy Tunnels posting, this took less than a full morning lol. I feel honored.
 
Well he caught feelings because they both said they're in favor of banning football. Pretty idiotic posts on a sports message board.
 
Well he caught feelings because they both said they're in favor of banning football. Pretty idiotic posts on a sports message board.

I think a sport that has shown it has long-term serious mental and physical health effects that we are still struggling to fully understand is a danger to society, especially to kids and teenagers, and should not be allowed in its current format. I have no illusion that it would ever get banned, doesn't mean I don't think it should be and I don't see how that is an idiotic opinion to have.
 
we only need to stop playing football if we care about players' safety and long-term health

but I do think there's a pretty good chance, if we do have football this fall, that Covid kills fewer players than CTE. Or DJ Durkin.
 
Your simple verities are appropriate for your simple mind. You seem to have no idea about what is going on in the larger world around you. Every other country? Where the hell do you live?

God you are so stupid but this will be my last post on the subject. The facts simply tell one and only one story: America has handled this in the least effective way possible despite the most resources and most lead time to react. Every other civilized country has done better. Period.
 
I hope the SEC cancels their season so Jamie Newman can’t play. Fuck him.
 
Back
Top