Should the NFL Play at all in 2020? RBF

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
8,913
Reaction score
15,497
Points
123

Again, there are issues. It's clear that the NFL players are okay with the risks so I'm ok with them playing the season as long as they are ok with the potential consequences. Which I would imagine most football players are already ok with, as they are likely to suffer from injuries on the field.
Step one is having the players union openly discuss the potential impact of COVID with the players to make sure they fully understand what they are signing up for. I feel like a lot of people in this country aren't aware of the things this virus has been doing to healthy people.
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
37,536
Reaction score
41,142
Points
148
Step one is having the players union openly discuss the potential impact of COVID with the players to make sure they fully understand what they are signing up for. I feel like a lot of people in this country aren't aware of the things this virus has been doing to healthy people.
Absolutely an under-discussed aspect.

Purposely under-educating Americans to the side effects of those who aren't dying or hospitalized. The effects can be severe, and we're almost certainly creating MORE sickness because of that lack of consistent education and communication by the people in charge.
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
37,536
Reaction score
41,142
Points
148

Again, there are issues. It's clear that the NFL players are okay with the risks so I'm ok with them playing the season as long as they are ok with the potential consequences. Which I would imagine most football players are already ok with, as they are likely to suffer from injuries on the field.
I truly hope this will not be viewed as political. There is, shall we say, an alternative theory (based on seemingly no/scant evidence) that there are no such effects:



Its relevant, because it speaks to the overall debate whether this virus is dangerous at all.

It is.
 
Last edited:

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
26,331
Reaction score
38,786
Points
148
I truly hope this will not be viewed as political. There is, shall we say, an alternative theory (based on seemingly no/scant evidence) that there are no such effects:



Its relevant, because it speaks to the overall debate that this virus is dangerous at all.

It is.
In absolute terms, he's wrong. It clearly has hurt some young people, and it is "dangerous". So the reaction to that statement problems depends on whether or not you think he's speaking in absolute terms "it is absolutely no danger to even a single young person", or whether you think it's implicit in the statement that he's referring to the magnitude/numbers of young people at risk.

There are shitloads of things that are "dangerous", including playing football itself. But we don't -- and thankfully never have -- expected 100% safety from life. So the relevant questions are twofold 1) what percentage of athletes/young people are likely to have permanent, serious adverse effects, and 2) what is the likelihood that young people are likely to get it/be exposed to it regardless of football simply because most colleges are still holding in-person classes? Because if it is going to run through that population anyway...then cancellation makes less sense.
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
37,536
Reaction score
41,142
Points
148
In absolute terms, he's wrong. It clearly has hurt some young people, and it is "dangerous". So the reaction to that statement problems depends on whether or not you think he's speaking in absolute terms "it is absolutely no danger to even a single young person", or whether you think it's implicit in the statement that he's referring to the magnitude/numbers of young people at risk.

There are shitloads of things that are "dangerous", including playing football itself. But we don't -- and thankfully never have -- expected 100% safety from life. So the relevant questions are twofold 1) what percentage of athletes/young people are likely to have permanent, serious adverse effects, and 2) what is the likelihood that young people are likely to get it/be exposed to it regardless of football simply because most colleges are still holding in-person classes? Because if it is going to run through that population anyway...then cancellation makes less sense.
I think we're in total agreement with regards to the severity of the virus and the risks associated.

This fight between cancellation and not isn't about the health risks, despite politicians hijaking that to continue peddling disinformation that is provably false.

Its seems to be about colleges and universities not ponying up the dollars to fund testing and safety protocols like the other leagues, due to players organizing and voicing support for those protections in a way that makes it appear like they're negotiating as an organized body. Hence why the Big Ten went from releasing a schedule and developing their plan to play just last week, before nearly cancelling the season after it appeared the players were making demands about their own health and safety.

The myth of amateurism is at risk, they have no interest in setting this precedent that student-athletes can organize to demand anything at all. This is about profits, and not the safety of student athletes. The kids deserve it, if they're going to go out there and take risks with their own health, which they're courageously open to doing.
 

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
26,331
Reaction score
38,786
Points
148
I think we're in total agreement with regards to the severity of the virus and the risks associated.
Well that's good!

Its seems to be about colleges and universities not ponying up the dollars to fund testing and safety protocols like the other leagues, due to players organizing and voicing support for those protections in a way that makes it appear like they're negotiating as an organized body.
I don't think it's about that at all. I think the differences between the pros and colleges in terms of protocols are huge, and are being overlooked.

1) The leagues have been in their "bubble", because that's the player's normal job, and the NFL exists for the sole purpose of playing football. So their entire world can be bent to make them as safe as possible.

But college athletes are actually in college, and most colleges are still holding in person classes this fall. All those players will be mingling with all those other students who are not in a "football bubble". We may forget it in here because this is a sports-oriented board and we are all fans of college football, but the primary purpose of colleges is not as a vehicle for playing football, but rather education. Football is incidental to college. The vast, vast majority of college students don't play football. The vast majority of college kids who do play football will never even sniff the NFL. They truly are in college for the education.

2) Because of this, the school Presidents (as opposed to some AD's, coaches, and players) are not willing to give football players massive additional protections that are not offered to other students, because other parents and all those people affiliated with the school who are not enthralled with the football program (and colleges have many of those) would justifiably go apeshit:

"You mean my kid has to attend in person classes, but football players don't because it isn't safe and they might get the virus??"

"You mean football players can get multiple tests each day to protect them from potentially transmitting the virus to other football players, but my kid and everyone he associates with can't, and just have to run the risk that the students around them don't have it??"

I mean, yikes. That is an absolutely terrible look for colleges. It's one thing for football players to get some usual privileges that don't really impact other students. It is an entirely different matter when we're talking potential life/health/death. Football people may delude themselves into thinking the tale wags the dog, but ultimately, it doesn't. You could eliminate football and still have a perfectly functioning school. You can't eliminate the school and still have a school football team. And again -- the vast majority of college football players have no NFL aspirations, and want that education. So even if the schools would agree to let football players (only) take all classes remotely, you'd have a lot of players that wouldn't want to do that, and the school wouldn't want to be perceived as pressuring them not to attend classes when everyone else is.

The college bubble can't happen. Maybe a conference like the SEC where many of the schools have shit for academic standards doesn't care. But "real" academic schools should care, and they will.

Hence why the Big Ten went from releasing a schedule and developing their plan to play just last week, before nearly cancelling the season after it appeared the players were making demands about their own health and safety.
If the players are making demands about their health and safety that go beyond what the schools can reasonably provide to other students -- which is almost certainly the case -- then yeah. That's a perfectly valid reason to slam on the brakes. Especially in light of the report about there being some (rare) some form of encephalitis relating to Covid-19. The schools may feel that they're being set up for a PR disaster if they don't give the players what they are demanding -- which they cannot provide to other students in their daily lives - and so decided to punt. If they don't give in to all the player demands, they'll be accused of putting those players at risk. And if they do give in, they'll be accused of prioritizing the health/lives of football players over the lives of the 99% of the rest of the student body.
 
Last edited:

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
26,331
Reaction score
38,786
Points
148
I think we're in total agreement with regards to the severity of the virus and the risks associated.

This fight between cancellation and not isn't about the health risks, despite politicians hijaking that to continue peddling disinformation that is provably false.

Its seems to be about colleges and universities not ponying up the dollars to fund testing and safety protocols like the other leagues, due to players organizing and voicing support for those protections in a way that makes it appear like they're negotiating as an organized body. Hence why the Big Ten went from releasing a schedule and developing their plan to play just last week, before nearly cancelling the season after it appeared the players were making demands about their own health and safety.

The myth of amateurism is at risk, they have no interest in setting this precedent that student-athletes can organize to demand anything at all. This is about profits, and not the safety of student athletes. The kids deserve it, if they're going to go out there and take risks with their own health, which they're courageously open to doing.
Glad we agree on the severity/risk issues!

I'm going to respond to this in the college football thread because that's where most of the discussion seems to be happening.

ETA: Guess I should have deleted my response then....Oh well.
 
Last edited:

Los216

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
19,664
Reaction score
16,971
Points
123
What are we gonna do after an active player dies from COVID-19?
 

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
26,331
Reaction score
38,786
Points
148
What are we gonna do after an active player dies from COVID-19?
Good question. My thought is that we should react the same as when an active player dies from the heat, or from a heart condition, which happens not infrequently. But I'm not a player, nor a player's parent, so my opinion doesn't matter.
 

Randolphkeys

Speaking on the Pompitous
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Aug 20, 2005
Messages
27,704
Reaction score
61,484
Points
148
I truly hope this will not be viewed as political. There is, shall we say, an alternative theory (based on seemingly no/scant evidence) that there are no such effects:



Its relevant, because it speaks to the overall debate whether this virus is dangerous at all.

It is.
I was careful to clear this article and the discussion that would go with it with all the necessary higher ups before I started. Normally we can all steer clear of politics when discussing sports. After all, sports are intended to be a distraction from heavy discussion. However, it's impossible right now during this critical time to separate Covid-19 and public health from sports. As long as everyone continues to be respectful of other viewpoints and keep the discussion in here, everything is fine.
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
37,536
Reaction score
41,142
Points
148
Well considering anyone playing is not at risk of death whatsoever form COVID-19 we won’t have to worry about that....

If you have previous health issues that make you immune suppressed opt out. It’s really that simple.
This discussion has been respectful and courteous.

It does not need to be driven off course by someone who refuses to accept any of the facts with regards what makes this statement false.

 
Last edited:

Amherstcavsfan

Always a Wine and Gold Winner
Browns Moderator
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
16,811
Reaction score
22,285
Points
135
Well considering anyone playing is not at risk of death whatsoever form COVID-19 we won’t have to worry about that....

If you have previous health issues that make you immune suppressed opt out. It’s really that simple.
Isnt obesity like the number one preexisting condition that helps accelerate or have the virus hit harder or have more after effects?
 

Los216

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
19,664
Reaction score
16,971
Points
123
Good question. My thought is that we should react the same as when an active player dies from the heat, or from a heart condition, which happens not infrequently. But I'm not a player, nor a player's parent, so my opinion doesn't matter.
There are preventable measures taken by every player in the league to prevent players from dying from heat strokes or heart problems. Players are screened around the clock for medical issues. NFL teams go above and beyond to prevent players from dying due to the heat.

So what are the preventable measures from COVID-19??????

Wearing a mask
Social distancing
Washing your hands and staying clean

So if we know the preventable measures from contacting COVID-19 just like we know the preventable measures from dying of a heat stroke (hydrating, staying cool, don't over exhaust yourself in high temperatures) and heart problems (periodic medical screenings, blood work, physical exams) what happens after a player dies??

You do see that I'm showing you how a football player dying from COVID-19 can be almost 100% preventable by not playing right? So are we suppose to just accept a player dying from COVID-19 just because they are playing? It's obvious that without a vaccine that no player will be completely safe from COVID-19. So how can we sit here in August before a single snap has been taken and talk like we know what to do in the event that a player dies when we all know that the right thing to do is for them to not play until it is safe?

It does not have to be this way. There cannot be an argument for playing football and an argument for being safe. If you play football during this pandemic without a vaccine available then there is no safety. It's actually that simple.

And I think your opinion does matter. It's all of our opinions that need to be discussed so that we can find the best way to navigate through life during these times. Trying to find ways to make football, a game that is notoriously dangerous, safe during a pandemic is not trying at all. It's pointless. It's not intelligent. It's dangerous. It's deadly.
 
Top