My plan to save #CFB

isutrevman

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2007
7,372
9,948
113
36
Ames, IA
Ummmmm.... there's a TON of contact in soccer. But they've been much smarter over there, so they get to have sports. Us.... not so much.
The PGA and NASCAR have been going for several weeks now. TBT is also about to wrap up so I'd say we are having sports too.
 

Die4Cy

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2010
13,163
13,112
113
Mask usage is not a panacea and the solution to the virus crisis.

This needs to be repeated as there are too many people who focus too narrowly on it, even here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Royalclone

diaclone

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
8,210
8,082
113
Metro Omaha
I don't agree with that. If the criteria was that no player can get the virus, we wouldn't even be discussing the possibility of playing. We wouldn't even be discussing the possibility of having colleges open period.

I'll ask this. Are athletes more likely to contract the virus while practicing and playing games, or while going to classes, living in the dorms/apartments and in general life outside the football complex? In my opinion, being inside the football complex is going to be as safe, or safer than being around campus. Think about meals alone. On campus cafeterias have hundreds of students in there at one time. Students who probably aren't adhering to strict protocols and periodic testing like athletes will be. Athletes would be much safer eating meals at the football complex.

If experts determine that athletes are put at a higher risk than the average student, then it probably makes sense to not play. I don't believe that is the case, though. But, I could be wrong.
The NBA basically is playing in a bubble environment and that is not at all controlling the virus. I think we've passed the point of actually having a cfb season. I know AD's and the NCAA are wanting too, because of the $$, but we're just too late.

Collectively, we've put "the economy" over "public health." Why should we put our preferences for watching games over public health?
 

clonedude

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
30,815
26,048
113
My TV tells me there's a soccer game on tonight. Atlanta United vs. New York Red Bulls.

Is there as much physicality as football? Are there positions where players are constantly engaged physically with another player literally the entire time? Do they huddle often? Are there 100 soccer players on a team?

Basically which one is easier to work out logistics based on numbers?

Can you read?

I never said soccer had more contact than football. I said that soccer has a TON of contact. You must not watch soccer I take it?

If you can't have any sports with contact.... then soccer would definitely be prohibited is all I'm saying.
 

clonedude

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
30,815
26,048
113
The NBA basically is playing in a bubble environment and that is not at all controlling the virus. I think we've passed the point of actually having a cfb season. I know AD's and the NCAA are wanting too, because of the $$, but we're just too late.

Collectively, we've put "the economy" over "public health." Why should we put our preferences for watching games over public health?

I don't think the NBA season will last long.... if it ever even gets started?
 
  • Like
Reactions: diaclone

diaclone

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
8,210
8,082
113
Metro Omaha
Also have the WHO, CDC, every health expert and politician urge mask wearing from the start. If they had done that, which includes Trump encouraging mask wearing, and wearing one himself publicly, I think you'd have like 90% compliance or better, which is probably good enough.
Yes, I think that if 90% wore masks, the science predicts that we have many fewer cases and there are fewer spreaders.
 

diaclone

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
8,210
8,082
113
Metro Omaha
Mask usage is not a panacea and the solution to the virus crisis.

This needs to be repeated as there are too many people who focus too narrowly on it, even here.
Mask wearing will help stop the speed of the spread and give hospitals and hospital workers a chance to care for folks.
 

madguy30

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2011
50,158
46,981
113
Can you read?

I never said soccer had more contact than football. I said that soccer has a TON of contact. You must not watch soccer I take it?

If you can't have any sports with contact.... then soccer would definitely be prohibited is all I'm saying.

And I didn't say soccer's not physical. It's just less so than football. I've watched enough soccer to know the physicality is night and day to what football.

There's also less players, so it's easier to keep track of everyone, have adequate testing, etc. Same with baseball. The Tournament was similar.

A breeze compared what football would be.
 

Rabbuk

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2011
55,179
42,552
113
Mask usage is not a panacea and the solution to the virus crisis.

This needs to be repeated as there are too many people who focus too narrowly on it, even here.
No one is saying it is. Just that if more than 10% of people would mask up that would be better.
 

clonedude

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
30,815
26,048
113
And I didn't say soccer's not physical. It's just less so than football. I've watched enough soccer to know the physicality is night and day to what football.

There's also less players, so it's easier to keep track of everyone, have adequate testing, etc. Same with baseball. The Tournament was similar.

A breeze compared what football would be.

I totally agree with that.

I'm just saying that in Europe they are able to play soccer right now because of how well they've been able to lower their cases over there. We should not even be playing soccer in this country right now IMO. There's too much contact. Golf yes... soccer no.
 

madguy30

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2011
50,158
46,981
113
I totally agree with that.

I'm just saying that in Europe they are able to play soccer right now because of how well they've been able to lower their cases over there. We should not even be playing soccer in this country right now IMO. There's too much contact. Golf yes... soccer no.

If the soccer teams aren't doing anything else and they're able to get tested often it's possible to have it.

Hell if we were able to get saliva tests to schools and such it would potentially make school at least closer to possible.
 

CloneIce

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
36,573
19,416
113
The NBA basically is playing in a bubble environment and that is not at all controlling the virus. I think we've passed the point of actually having a cfb season. I know AD's and the NCAA are wanting too, because of the $$, but we're just too late.

Collectively, we've put "the economy" over "public health." Why should we put our preferences for watching games over public health?

This is all true, but I think holding games without fans is a legitimate option. Assuming colleges are open and in session of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: diaclone

Rabbuk

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2011
55,179
42,552
113
This is all true, but I think holding games without fans is a legitimate option. Assuming colleges are open and in session of course.
I'm operating under the assumption the NBA will end up cancelling and MLB as well.
 

CloneIce

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
36,573
19,416
113
I'm operating under the assumption the NBA will end up cancelling and MLB as well.

Certainly possible, but if they can keep up the testing and be consistent in quarantine rules, I think the seasons could work. It’s looking like baseball positives % are quite a bit lower than NBA. Why do you think it’ll get canceled?
 

Acylum

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2006
12,903
13,309
113
The narrative on masks has been bad since day one. They should’ve been promoted more for their prophylactic value to the wearer rather than reducing transmission by the infected. Did anybody see the study this week that said wearing a mask reduces your chances of becoming infected by 65%? 65%, think about that. The thing nobody mentioned is an individual has no control over other people wearing a mask, the type of mask, or whether the mask is being used correctly. But you can control those factors for yourself. Just 10% of someone’s breath escaping unfiltered reduces the efficacy of the mask by 90%. And that’s not taking into account a forceful exhalation such as a cough or a sneeze. Guess what people are going to do when you tell them they should wear a mask to prevent them infecting other people but they’re asymptomatic. Change the narrative to how much masks help the wearer from becoming infected. Then run PSAs showing the proper way to wear a mask.
 

clonedude

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
30,815
26,048
113
The narrative on masks has been bad since day one. They should’ve been promoted more for their prophylactic value to the wearer rather than reducing transmission by the infected. Did anybody see the study this week that said wearing a mask reduces your chances of becoming infected by 65%? 65%, think about that. The thing nobody mentioned is an individual has no control over other people wearing a mask, the type of mask, or whether the mask is being used correctly. But you can control those factors for yourself. Just 10% of someone’s breath escaping unfiltered reduces the efficacy of the mask by 90%. And that’s not taking into account a forceful exhalation such as a cough or a sneeze. Guess what people are going to do when you tell them they should wear a mask to prevent them infecting other people but they’re asymptomatic. Change the narrative to how much masks help the wearer from becoming infected. Then run PSAs showing the proper way to wear a mask.

You do realize that since like late March everyone has known to wear a mask, right?

So how do you explain everything that has happened since then? Who's fault is that?
 

CloneIce

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
36,573
19,416
113
The narrative on masks has been bad since day one. They should’ve been promoted more for their prophylactic value to the wearer rather than reducing transmission by the infected. Did anybody see the study this week that said wearing a mask reduces your chances of becoming infected by 65%? 65%, think about that. The thing nobody mentioned is an individual has no control over other people wearing a mask, the type of mask, or whether the mask is being used correctly. But you can control those factors for yourself. Just 10% of someone’s breath escaping unfiltered reduces the efficacy of the mask by 90%. And that’s not taking into account a forceful exhalation such as a cough or a sneeze. Guess what people are going to do when you tell them they should wear a mask to prevent them infecting other people but they’re asymptomatic. Change the narrative to how much masks help the wearer from becoming infected. Then run PSAs showing the proper way to wear a mask.

More effective, straightforward solution - just make it mandatory. I saw it go from probably 66% to 99% overnight when that was mandated in the KC area.
 

Gunnerclone

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2010
69,030
69,040
113
DSM
I totally agree with that.

I'm just saying that in Europe they are able to play soccer right now because of how well they've been able to lower their cases over there. We should not even be playing soccer in this country right now IMO. There's too much contact. Golf yes... soccer no.

The Crew are literally plying tonight. But point taken as in Europe they are playing at home fields, while MLS is in Orlando (great idea!).
 

Cloneon

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2015
2,670
2,663
113
West Virginia
Differwnt things I think between “airborne” and able to be spread via droplets/aerosols. It’s probably a technical distinction.
Agree, but one which I think requires further clarification. It's not like the virus is hanging out floating around until the next breath gets it. It's in droplets which eventually 'dry' or fall to the ground. So, don't go licking your shoes. ;)
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron