Berlusconi said:
Good lord, who knew to just what extent these unpaid college football players have been putting the financial solvency of entire universities on their backs?
Not until faced with the elimination, albeit temporary, of college football are we seeing the power brokers level with us as to how important this sport really is. Exhibit A- Iowa State President's alarming letter.
We can argue all day as to whether these kids need to see some of this revenue, as it's clearly vital to higher learning on so many levels, much more so than simply finding the other programs. Employment, salaries, research, grants, and a trickle down to the quality of education itself for each individual student are factors in play when this juggernaut Is halted.
Paying players aside, what can be argued rather successfully, as evidenced in this open letter, is the health risks are too low for Covid 19 and the players involved to cancel the season and accept the direct consequences to the overall university systems. A risk/reward evaluation clearly supports playing.
Tee it up, fellas. Let's play ball.
Trackdawg073 said:
It's important to not that while Georgia has a truly massive rainy day fund and very little debt that would truly threaten the AA with insolvency, most (>70%) of college athletic departments do not. Not only that, but without any revenue this fall, even UGA would be forced to make some deep cuts to all programs. There are some schools though, looking at you Tennessee, who might actually risk insolvency with no revenue. While one might dislike the athletic department business model regarding paying players, but the fact of the matter is that thousands upon thousands of Jobs and livelihoods depend on it. Not to mention the importance of athletic department revenues to other businesses around college towns. Those jobs also depend on football season happening in some form.
We are in trouble nationally because we refused to separate and mask when we had the chance.viperoy said:
If the risks of having football only put players at risk, the players could decide if those are risks they want to assume--and each could go their own direction WITHOUT retaliation. (Kind of like each state's schools should be able to decide which way to go with restarting in-class instruction without retaliation--such as the White House withholding federal funds from them if they elect to protect their children's health/lives).
But, in the case of both college football and our kids going back to class, the football players and children are not even close to the only ones put at risk. Every student, every player puts everyone they contact at risk by participating. The athletes put every support person in their system at risk, the students put every family member and every teacher/support member at risk also. Not only are many of these people high risk but each one affected becomes another a source of spread, even if asymptomatic.
We are in trouble nationally because we refused to separate and mask when we had the chance. We made it even worse when we opened states as if it did not matter. Making another major mistake, and on a grander scale, is not the answer.
I believe it was a Florida legislator that opined that the elderly would be glad sacrifice themselves and die if it meant getting things back to normal--he meant the stock market. I'll bet you won't find one student willing to sacrifice a parent, grandparent or otherwise so he can aid Wall Street, I mean get education back on track, as Trump insists.
Opening sports or schools to disaster is not justifiable in order to avoid the consequences of poor financial planning in our college budgets. Maybe the current realization will lead colleges to retool their budget priorities.
Those numbers are obviously incomplete, as noted on the site.Dirtydawgs said:
CDC.gov deaths. 177 deaths last week total and 55 of those were over 85 y/o.
cases are going up but this thing has run its course for now.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#AgeAndSex
"117 deaths"--where did that number come from? Go to https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/coronavirus-deaths-united-states-each-day-2020-n1177936 and look at death counts in the last 7 days. The death count for the past week for four states alone (FL, CA, NJ and TX) was TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN--and death numbers lags behind the increasing number of positive tests for several weeks so the death rate is going to rise. Tell the truth. We ain't licked a damn thing.Dirtydawgs said:
CDC.gov deaths. 177 deaths last week total and 55 of those were over 85 y/o.
cases are going up but this thing has run its course for now.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#AgeAndSex
The CDC has been working from the beginning to both try to assign deaths to the day of death (versus reporting day) and look at incremental deaths (over and above those that would have died anyway) to assess impact of the virus. Both are laudable goals IMO, but result in more lag time before we get final numbers than just going with reporting day. This is at odds with our "I gotta know NOW" culture.Dirtydawgs said:
Seems that every website, every stat is skewed to fit a narrative.
I just try to trust the CDC over NBC News.
Who knows? The CDC death graph is trending down. 177 was the total number they listed last week. I'm not doing the tally.
I was trying to help you understand the data you were using to fit your narrative. If you look at the same link today, it's up to 522 for the week of 7/4. It will continue to go higher as the CDC retroactively updates its numbers.Dirtydawgs said:
Seems that every website, every stat is skewed to fit a narrative.
I just try to trust the CDC over NBC News.
Who knows? The CDC death graph is trending down. 177 was the total number they listed last week. I'm not doing the tally.
