This is not a politics or press thread, so I'll try to be brief. Like it or not, we are in a new age of journalism where outlets do not give any sense of equal time in probing both sides of an issue. In Cronkite's day they reported both sides, even if the news outlets personally gave more credence to one side. After Tet, Cronkite sort of went to the edge of journalism in sharing his conclusion to the effect that the 'US would not end the war as victors, rather it would have to be a negotiated solution as an honorable people who did the best that they could.' This was a gigantic step and a good one, however I believe Cronkite had more years and data available to draw his conclusion. Co-Vid is not similar, in fact it is way more complex and over a shorter time-span. Also, we now live in a very polarized journalistic world, which makes it incredibly tough to be a reasonably informed (i.e. just collect competing viewpoints) citizen.
IMO, CoVid has been a mass experiment from the beginning. Fox is not a massive disinformation campaign any more than CNN or other outlets. There have been differing and competing views about re-opening in the Co-Vid age from day one, and college football now happens to be at the forefront.
From my perspective, reopening during Co-Vid is simply a gigantic experiment, as Co-Vid still presents so many unknowns. It is about accepting risk, mitigating risk (i.e. taking certain measures), and then seeing what happens. That risk is balanced against other risks and the negative impacts associated with keeping things closed. First, essential businesses were tackled in areas in meat-packing, non-essential medical procedures, to air transportation, to opening restaurants. Each endeavor posed its own unique set of challenges. Now we have professional sports both in a bubble (NBA, NHL) and without fans (baseball, golf, car racing)--each is successful to differing degrees, but it is not a one-size-fits-all solution for sports.
Geographically and politically, Governors have taken vastly different approaches and one will not know which is right, wrong or even optimal for some time. I may be comfortable with trying certain things (i.e. having BVSD start with the hybrid model), but I do not really criticize our Governor, Health Department, School Board, Teachers, or other parents for their differing levels of comfort; and the final decision to start in-home learning. Simply put, the science is not available to make/insist on a "no-brainer" decision. IMO, the science is not clear cut and there is no certain time-frame for a vaccine... Therefore, as a country we are living in a large pitree dish of sorts. All the Governors are trying different approaches, which I believe to be a good thing--some rush to aggressively open things up and some cautiously keep things on lock-down. It takes decisions across the spectrum to see which one is most effective or more optimal than others. There will probably be no one right decision. Dealing with Co-Vid is one gigantic experiment of trial and error in testing the boundaries of Co-Vid through every segment of society. Bringing students back to campus in Colorado is one huge experiment, but IMO it is a necessary experiment. College football is the same thing.
It is right for segments of the news organizations to scrutinize the decisions, but you have to understand that there are two sides. To say one approach is "science driven," and another approach is not is overly simplistic and ignores the entire spectrum. There are costs--not just economic but societal costs in staying closed. For college football, the players, their parents and fans have been illuminating those costs and explaining their desire to play. That does not mean the PAC12 or B1B are right or wrong in their decision, or that the ACC, SEC, Big-12 and Notre Dame are right or wrong in their decision. Only time will tell how the risks v. benefits pay off.
The saliva test could be a game changer, but that is unlikely. Just like the heart study which is now being criticized--people minimizing or criticizing the study is not right or wrong, as that is how science evolves. Trial and error. In closing, it will be interesting to see where the conferences end up-- will the fall season be a success or massive failure? Will the SEC, ACC and B-12 reconsider? Will the B1G and Pac12 reconsider? Will the Spring season be a success of failure? --only time (trial and error) will tell. For the time being, I think all options will remain on the table for every conference.
www.cbssports.com
