2019-2020 College Football Thread

There is excitement building for a new saliva test for COVID, which apparently was funded in part by the NBA. If this proves to be a quick, safe test, does it change the outlook on whether colleges should have cancelled fall sports? Will the Big 10 and PAC 12 have egg on their faces?
 
 
1.8% which is pretty average for high testing environments.

quick google comparison - As Mike Garafolo of the NFL Network pointed out Monday afternoon, the positive test rate when players and personnel reported to their respective training camps was 1.7% overall.
 
There is excitement building for a new saliva test for COVID, which apparently was funded in part by the NBA. If this proves to be a quick, safe test, does it change the outlook on whether colleges should have cancelled fall sports? Will the Big 10 and PAC 12 have egg on their faces?


It seems that the Big 10 is looking more long-term and the potential impact of infection to the long-term health of their players.
 
Last edited:

It seems that the Big 10 is looking more long-term and the potential impact of infection to the long-term health of their players.
I will not criticize the goal. The health of the players should be the number 1 concern.

Let’s assume that the Big 10 and PAC 12 play a football season in the Spring of ‘21 and then things normalize for the Fall of ‘21. Would asking the players to play two full seasons of college football within one calendar year be consistent with having a concern for the long-term health of the players?

I saw that news article and it was somewhat alarming. We still don’t have a good grasp of all of the long term risks of contracting COVID-19.
 
I will not criticize the goal. The health of the players should be the number 1 concern.

Let’s assume that the Big 10 and PAC 12 play a football season in the Spring of ‘21 and then things normalize for the Fall of ‘21. Would asking the players to play two full seasons of college football within one calendar year be consistent with having a concern for the long-term health of the players?

I saw that news article and it was somewhat alarming. We still don’t have a good grasp of all of the long term risks of contracting COVID-19.
I think 2021 football for Big 10 and PAC 12 is going to look a little more like 1AA/FCS. Going to see a lot of opt outs this spring. Also assuming top tier kids will be pulled to the other conferences without those two conferences being on TV this fall.

Also think this is going to be the first step towards consolidating into regions and a 4-5 conference set up for big schools.
 
I will not criticize the goal. The health of the players should be the number 1 concern.

Let’s assume that the Big 10 and PAC 12 play a football season in the Spring of ‘21 and then things normalize for the Fall of ‘21. Would asking the players to play two full seasons of college football within one calendar year be consistent with having a concern for the long-term health of the players?

I saw that news article and it was somewhat alarming. We still don’t have a good grasp of all of the long term risks of contracting COVID-19.

I think your last sentence is so important. And with potential long term issues with the heart and lungs possible, the schools still playing are taking a risk. Hey, maybe nothing drastic happens and the B1G and PAC12 are made to look foolish in postponing their seasons. I guess we’ll see it play out as those who haven chosen to play in the fall, play out their seasons.
 

It seems that the Big 10 is looking more long-term and the potential impact of infection to the long-term health of their players.
It is interesting that there is no information in the article regarding how many Big 10 athletes have tested positive. Thus, we are left uninformed regarding the sample size. The article also states that there may have been some reliance upon information coming out of Germany that is suspect.
 
It is interesting that there is no information in the article regarding how many Big 10 athletes have tested positive. Thus, we are left uninformed regarding the sample size. The article also states that there may have been some reliance upon information coming out of Germany that is suspect.

Damage control? Feeling pressure regarding decision not to play?
 
It is interesting that there is no information in the article regarding how many Big 10 athletes have tested positive. Thus, we are left uninformed regarding the sample size. The article also states that there may have been some reliance upon information coming out of Germany that is suspect.
So far only 7 of the Big 10 schools have provided testing details(per ESPNs request). Of those 7 schools, there have been 169 positive test results. Now this is not strictly the football teams, but then again neither was the assertion by the Penn State doctor. So obviously with some extrapolation you can get an idea that they have a somewhat significant sample size.
 
So far only 7 of the Big 10 schools have provided testing details(per ESPNs request). Of those 7 schools, there have been 169 positive test results. Now this is not strictly the football teams, but then again neither was the assertion by the Penn State doctor. So obviously with some extrapolation you can get an idea that they have a somewhat significant sample size.

Yes, it was pretty clear it was for all athletes, not simply football players. I agree that 169 positive tests is a decent sample size. It is interesting that this heart tissue inflammation issue is not coming up elsewhere. I don’t doubt that it is real, but it is interesting that others are not picking up on it.
 
The B1G will take another vote sometime this week(weekend). The report they were given had more holes than swiss cheese.
 
oh no, jk. social media is the worst.



Damn. That story took off like wild fire and is completely out of context. Then additional sources are patched in to complete the thought. I feel bad for sharing it.
 


Oh, really?
 
Damn. That story took off like wild fire and is completely out of context. Then additional sources are patched in to complete the thought. I feel bad for sharing it.
it's not your fault, usa today got their clicks and that's what they care about more than the truth.
 
It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
Looks like we've already had the first upset of the season! WOW didn't expect this..

OU-35
Kansas State- 38
 
Looks like we've already had the first upset of the season! WOW didn't expect this..

OU-35
Kansas State- 38
HUGE win for K-State!!!!! To bad they lost the last game to ArkST :banghead:
 
Texas Tech came to play!
 
Is it true Oklahoma lost to KSU? Wowzers!!!
 
Back
Top