AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
2020 CU football season POSTPONED until Nov 6th?
- Thread starter Jens1893
- Start date
I think the cancellation is less about accurate & easy testing, mostly about legal liability if a player or staffer dies, develops a chronic lung or heart issue, or spreads to a friend/family person who has a tragic outcome.
I agree, but I can't comprehend why 3/5 businesses (leagues - ACC, SEC, Big 12) would seemingly view the liability risk as a non-issue, while the other two believe it's a big enough issue to cancel weeks in advance.
GuySmiley
Don't Drink the Kool-Aid
I have nothing to base this on, but depending on a ground-swell of player support petitioning to play, I think for some reason this week that the Big 10 and PAC 12 are going to reconsider playing football in this fall. The college presidents may very well come to the same conclusion and move it to the Spring. However, with the heart study being criticized, the saliva testing, and the players petitioning, I think that they will reconsider just to save face, should the Fall season somehow work out.
I'm just wondering why there is such inconsistent and differing opinions across the P5 leagues. If the liability risk is great enough for Pac 12/BIG to cancel the season, why is it not great enough for the other three P5 conferences? Are the SEC, ACC and Big 12 really just willing to risk complete financial ruin in the name of CFB?
No one is willing to question the mighty SEC on anything.
I am questioning the entire thing...
If a player dies in the SEC, I imagine they are just as ****ed as if a player dies in the Pac 12/BIG. I'm just wondering why they (and the other two) don't seem to care about the liability.
Well, there is also the issue of what happens with outbreaks during the season. No one seems to want to answer for anything.
I imagine it will just be a play it by ear situation like it is in every other sport right now. I'm honestly not advocating for a Fall season, I'm just confused by the complete opposite narratives among the conferences.
Understood.
The Athletic interviews the Cardiologist who is advising the B12 today (paywall).
theathletic.com
I read the piece and while he tries to describe other leagues as being alarmists, it honestly just cemented my opinion that the P12 is doing the right thing.
Basically, you have no data that states it's 100% safe to proceed and be able to control the virus, and what the outcomes will be for those who survive contracting the virus (long term heart problems being the biggest concern). He makes the point that we just don't know.
So "if we just don't know", it seems that the NFL can make a decision, but I'd expect the leading Academic Institutions in the world to make a much more conservative decision, which they've done. Partly, because they are Academic Institutions, not Pro Football leagues (primarily) and second because the players aren't really being paid, they are getting just a free education.
So the answer really lies in what is the mission? In the SEC, it's football. In the PAC12, it's higher education first. Simple.
Q&A: One cardiologist’s reasoning on why myocarditis shouldn’t delay seasons
Michael Ackerman advised conference and school officials from the Big 12 it would be safe to proceed amid the virus.
theathletic.com
I read the piece and while he tries to describe other leagues as being alarmists, it honestly just cemented my opinion that the P12 is doing the right thing.
Basically, you have no data that states it's 100% safe to proceed and be able to control the virus, and what the outcomes will be for those who survive contracting the virus (long term heart problems being the biggest concern). He makes the point that we just don't know.
So "if we just don't know", it seems that the NFL can make a decision, but I'd expect the leading Academic Institutions in the world to make a much more conservative decision, which they've done. Partly, because they are Academic Institutions, not Pro Football leagues (primarily) and second because the players aren't really being paid, they are getting just a free education.
So the answer really lies in what is the mission? In the SEC, it's football. In the PAC12, it's higher education first. Simple.
Last edited:
GuySmiley
Don't Drink the Kool-Aid
I think that it all goes into the risk/benefit calculus on both micro and macro levels. In general, people gauge that risk/benefit in all different ways across society. Also, everyone suffers a different level of CoVid fatigue. Throughout this pandemic there is definitely a geographic component, it hit certain areas harder earlier; some hit harder later; in some areas hit hard, they have recovered; in others no so much. Then the virus and its ever moving targets on symptoms, contageousness, complications, treatments, and death rates...
The one thing that was missing in the Pac 12/B1B decision was the players opinions. I think from the PAC's view, given the early demands by players, the cautious approach looked good, however what % of the players were actually represented in those early demands? Other conferences did not have the early demands.
On the micro side, you look at the players, coaches, student body and fans (if any are allowed to attend) with an added outbreak. On the macro side, it is how that state looks at the overall risk of wider-spread community outbreak. In places like California where the Governor has kept things pretty shut down, a community outbreak involving football would be huge news. In Arizona, where their outbreak was later and now somewhat controlled, not as huge of news.
Next, I think there is still a fear that there will be no Spring football. There is no guaranty of a season, especially if a fall/winter CoVid outbreak occurs. The conference will have to re-access yet again. This could be scary for some players and their families.
I do not think that there is or will be any clear cut answer. It is all an experiment of sorts. Three conferences appear comfortable to experiment, 2 others no so. How much more risk is involved as a football player v. a flight attendant? Each player would have to determine their overall risk and benefit-- is it a guy that has 10 games to prove himself in order for the opportunity to be drafted? Same for a guy with 2 years remaining--they have give or take 22-24 games for their shot at the NFL? How are they presently slotted on the depth chart, compared to waiting another year?
hawg1
Well-Known Member
The JAMA heart study is not perfect. It was not conducted to make a decision about playing football In America one way or the other.
However, taken with the JACC study and other athlete myo data, it cannot be ignored when it comes to assessing uncertainty and risk.
And that’s what P12 did along with considering two other key determinants, community spread and testing.
We all know this, but the legal liability is seemingly the sticking point and would be the same across conferences regardless of "mission". Is the SEC just crossing their fingers that nothing happens that could open them up to major lawsuits?
hawg1
Well-Known Member
Here’s the money quote from the doctor...The Athletic interviews the Cardiologist who is advising the B12 today (paywall).
Q&A: One cardiologist’s reasoning on why myocarditis shouldn’t delay seasons
Michael Ackerman advised conference and school officials from the Big 12 it would be safe to proceed amid the virus.
I read the piece and while he tries to describe other leagues as being alarmists, it honestly just cemented my opinion that the P12 is doing the right thing.
Basically, you have no data that states it's 100% safe to proceed and be able to control the virus, and what the outcomes will be for those who survive contracting the virus (long term heart problems being the biggest concern). He makes the point that we just don't know.
So "if we just don't know", it seems that the NFL can make a decision, but I'd expect the leading Academic Institutions in the world to make a much more conservative decision, which they've done. Partly, because they are Academic Institutions, not Pro Football leagues (primarily) and second because the players aren't really being paid, they are getting just a free education.
So the answer really lies in what is the mission? In the SEC, it's football. In the PAC12, it's higher education first. Simple.
For anybody who gets diagnosed with it and comes to medical attention, the general teaching has been that about a third gets completely better; a third are on medications and therapies for potentially life; and a third have a very, very bad version of the myocarditis that damages the heart muscle so much that they might need machines or transplants to counter that.
———
That’s the kind of uncertainty that leads to Point 2 in the reasons why P12 won’t play medical report.
hawg1
Well-Known Member
They will make that decision iwhen they get more info. Their statement to date sounds like “no reason to stop now” rather than “yes, we are going to play” decision
Yes.
I really don't think so.
Football is a religion for a large part of the United States and then you have the $$$
No. I wonder if remarks by POTUS actually give them "legal cover". <rhetorical> I mean, if the president says it's a hoax, can anyone be legally liable if they don't take it seriously enough? </r> Now imagine that question being posed to a jury in Alabama.
You find it odd, or you find is sad? Because I don't think it's odd at all to believe big business decisions are made almost exclusively from a financial standpoint.
I don't think it's as big deal as money, for sure. I think my argument might lie more in the area of everything might have been different if not viewed through the lens of "oh ****, how will this play in November". I will definitely concede, however, that the $$$ is the biggest issue at play.
Why? Because he has too many teeth to represent the SEC?this should have been the person representing the PAC 12
GuySmiley
Don't Drink the Kool-Aid
Agreed. I'm not ripping the PAC 12's decision and I do not think the decision was on that study alone, although that has been pointed by some as over-riding reason. Simply put, college football in fall or spring is an experiment during this pandemic. Just like any other sport. I'm not sure one will be necessarily right or one necessarily wrong; it just is what it is. IMO, you are members of a conference, you have 1 of 12 votes, you vote and accept the conference's decision. That being said, in light of the ACC, SEC and Big-12 plowing ahead, the PAC 12 may revisit the decision and will certainly do so if the B1G changes its mind.
On Schek's questions about legal liability being the bottom line, I personally do not envision a mass liability event (i.e. a team gets massively infected with multiple deaths with a wave of insurmountable lawsuits). Since, athletes are guaranteed the option to opt-out and medical staffs would be stupid to allow a truly at-risk athletes to participate, unless they fully understand and accept the risk, I just do not see it. Is it possible sure, but it will probably be possible in the Fall and Spring. Another curve-ball is with CoVid itself, as it has been extremely difficult to delineate specific risk categories, except that younger people fare much better than the elderly. There are a few others like sickle cell, diabetes, which are obvious. Overall, it is extremely tough to assign legal risks to the individual schools for these athletes. In trying to explain to Schek some legal thinking, to prove a case against as school, you need:
1. Negligence. The school failed to deliver a commercially reasonable standard of care under the circumstances. The circumstances we have here are the Co-Vid epidemic across the entire nation. Here, schools confront the initial question of whether it is safe to have kids on campus? Most schools have said yes, so that sets a standard. Then there is a football standard, which is it reasonable to have kids play a violent contact sport under the circumstances? Some say, yes, some no. Also, there is an argument that athletes will be safer at school with CoVid testing and medical care readily available v. being at home. What is the baseline value that Athlete A gets CoVid, as compared to student A, and some risk will be acceptable. This point has to be understood--(1) today with CoVid there is a heightened risk for an indeterminate period of time; and (2) in football specifically there is always heightened risk. Both can be accepted or not. Taking the risk and getting caught (i.e. sick), does not mean the school, athletic department, or someone was necessarily negligent.
2. Causation. The CoVid spread has to be tied to football, not just attending class. A mass outbreak could prove causation; but isolated outbreaks will happen on every college campus--it can be the dorms, not the football field.
3. Remedial Measures. Whenever a CoVid outbreak occurs, the school or athletic department will take remedial measures. This goes to the negligence standard, if the school meets the reasonable standards in taking remedial measures then less chance to find negligence.
3. Damages. For a star athlete, the damages may seem astronomical, yet in reality each athlete is really an unknown. All you need to do is look at 5* and 4* athletes, for everyone that makes it to a pro level, many do not even finish school or make it out of poverty. The NFL career is extremely short. Although one may fear huge lawsuits, in reality substantial financial damages in a CoVid football negligence case would be tough to prove.
4. Accepting the Risk/Waiver. I think that the SEC, Big 12, and ACC are betting on this. Also, any school that is opening it's campus also has students accepting the risk--or they cannot be there. There are no free passes with CoVid. Given that athletes can opt-out, for those who opt-in, they accept an elevated risk in a sport where risks are already substantially elevated (CTE, knee injuries etc...) risks. For athletes over 18, they are considered adults, so from a legal perspective they are deemed to understand the risk, and make an informed judgment whether to take it or not. For this year, they are certainly accepting more risk. It will be interesting whether these waivers will stand up in a court of law.
For what it is worth, I'm not sure legal liability is driving the bus. It is a factor... POTUS wanting a season does not provide any cover, it is a test of what is objectively reasonable under the circumstances...
Last edited:
hawg1
Well-Known Member
Nice post. Good info.
Mars says he knows plaintiff attorneys lining up to take business. Consider the source.
GuySmiley
Don't Drink the Kool-Aid
LOL...Nothing really prevents personal injury attorneys from lining up to take business. It never has in our society, but I would say this-- If I were a PI defense attorney on a CoVid football case, I'd much rather have a jury from Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida etc... than from Boulder, Palo Alto, Berkley, or Westwood...
I'm not surprised at all with the PAC 12's decision, but I thought the B1G would be a real close decision...