Jamie Pollard letter on falls sports

clonedude

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
30,858
26,077
113
Is working something people need to do to survive, because that's the whole point of the balancing act.

We’re sure going to find out.

Millions are having to survive right now without working with the help of the government, and it’s only going to be more and more people in the next several months at least.

The more that people go out, don’t wear masks, don’t social distance, etc the more unemployed we’re going to have.

The government will have to keep paying people or they will starve I guess?
 

Cyclonepride

Thought Police
Staff member
Apr 11, 2006
96,801
57,995
113
53
A pineapple under the sea
www.oldschoolradical.com
We’re sure going to find out.

Millions are having to survive right now without working with the help of the government, and it’s only going to be more and more people in the next several months at least.

The more that people go out, don’t wear masks, don’t social distance, etc the more unemployed we’re going to have.

The government will have to keep paying people or they will starve I guess?

We obviously want people following guidelines, but society still has to function. And tying this back to the topic at hand, sports are a big part of our society. There's no reason to think that, with proper precautions, we can't continue to do that, particularly with outdoor events.
 

ArgentCy

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2010
20,387
11,176
113
We’re sure going to find out.

Millions are having to survive right now without working with the help of the government, and it’s only going to be more and more people in the next several months at least.

The more that people go out, don’t wear masks, don’t social distance, etc the more unemployed we’re going to have.

The government will have to keep paying people or they will starve I guess?

You can't eat paper, at best it burns and may keep you warm.
 

agrabes

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2006
1,665
493
83
So just to use as an example.... let's say after a couple games Player A, who has a decent chance at playing in the NFL someday, tests positive for covid. But he's over it fairly quick and is only out like 3 or 4 games.

He then tries to come back and realizes he's lost quite a bit of his lung capacity and doctors tell him he'll likely never get it back again. And it's bad enough that he can no longer perform at the elite level required, and is never able to play again.

Or what if Player B after a game simply talks to his parents on the field, his parents end up getting covid from him and then die. Or if nobody is allowed to get near the players EVER, let's say a player unknowingly ends up giving it to an older assistant coach who ends up dying from it.

People do understand that a child did come home and gave it to both of their parents and both parents died from it, right? That actually happened in this country.

What if we play the entire season, and let's say during that season 8 players had gotten it during the season, but overcame it and came back. Then next March we come to find out that 5 of those 8 players now have serious medical conditions resulting from having it? Let's say one players kidneys stop functioning and has to go on dialysis. Another gets slight brain damage from it? Etc, etc.

Will we look back on the season and say it was worth playing it?

I realize you're a very negative person in general, but you really should try to get a better outlook on things. Let's look at what you're saying here and put it in perspective:

First - 8 out of 100+ players catch the virus over the course of the season. Totally reasonable prediction and fairly likely if we do have a season.

Second - 5/8 players have long term serious health effects. Highly unlikely. According to CDC data, approximately 3% of people between age 20 and 29 who are infected with Covid require hospitalization. https://data.cdc.gov/Case-Surveillance/COVID-19-Case-Surveillance-Public-Use-Data/vbim-akqf It also seems that long term health impacts are rare. It's unlikely that any football players would have long term health effects. They may have some lingering effects, but unlikely that they will be serious or longer term than a month or two. Not impossible, but very unlikely. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/07/12/what-we-know-about-long/

Third - A player talking to his parents on the field is likely to give them the virus and end up killing them both. Highly unlikely for several reasons. First, there's no scenario where the players are able to play in a game without having been tested that day. So, there's no meaningful chance of a player getting infected and becoming contagious during a single day, then passing that sickness on to his parents. Second, even if a player were to be infected with the virus and slip through the cracks of testing protocols, additional measures are going to be in place. Social distancing will be required and there's no chance players will be able to talk to people after a game without wearing masks, etc. This is part of the official game, they're "on the clock" until the end of post game interviews. They have to follow the rules.

Fourth - A player may infect a coach. Possible. Again, if they're going to play they have to have rules in place. The coaches will have to keep their distance. Granted, I've never played a game of organized football in my life, but I imagine you can coach from 6 feet away or farther if need be. It's also unlikely that even if a player does infect a coach that the coach will die or have long term serious health effects. If a coach is in a high risk category, the program needs to provide special protection for that coach.

Just assume some common sense, good faith, precautions being taken here. Don't assume that 5 worst case scenarios will all happen at once. Some people will get sick. You add up the numbers of total players, coaches and staff across the P5 and there's a chance that a few may have serious health effects or even die. But the chance is not significantly higher than just living a normal life, so long as people are taking common sense precautions.
 

Cyclonepride

Thought Police
Staff member
Apr 11, 2006
96,801
57,995
113
53
A pineapple under the sea
www.oldschoolradical.com
I realize you're a very negative person in general, but you really should try to get a better outlook on things. Let's look at what you're saying here and put it in perspective:

First - 8 out of 100+ players catch the virus over the course of the season. Totally reasonable prediction and fairly likely if we do have a season.

Second - 5/8 players have long term serious health effects. Highly unlikely. According to CDC data, approximately 3% of people between age 20 and 29 who are infected with Covid require hospitalization. https://data.cdc.gov/Case-Surveillance/COVID-19-Case-Surveillance-Public-Use-Data/vbim-akqf It also seems that long term health impacts are rare. It's unlikely that any football players would have long term health effects. They may have some lingering effects, but unlikely that they will be serious or longer term than a month or two. Not impossible, but very unlikely. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/07/12/what-we-know-about-long/

Third - A player talking to his parents on the field is likely to give them the virus and end up killing them both. Highly unlikely for several reasons. First, there's no scenario where the players are able to play in a game without having been tested that day. So, there's no meaningful chance of a player getting infected and becoming contagious during a single day, then passing that sickness on to his parents. Second, even if a player were to be infected with the virus and slip through the cracks of testing protocols, additional measures are going to be in place. Social distancing will be required and there's no chance players will be able to talk to people after a game without wearing masks, etc. This is part of the official game, they're "on the clock" until the end of post game interviews. They have to follow the rules.

Fourth - A player may infect a coach. Possible. Again, if they're going to play they have to have rules in place. The coaches will have to keep their distance. Granted, I've never played a game of organized football in my life, but I imagine you can coach from 6 feet away or farther if need be. It's also unlikely that even if a player does infect a coach that the coach will die or have long term serious health effects. If a coach is in a high risk category, the program needs to provide special protection for that coach.

Just assume some common sense, good faith, precautions being taken here. Don't assume that 5 worst case scenarios will all happen at once. Some people will get sick. You add up the numbers of total players, coaches and staff across the P5 and there's a chance that a few may have serious health effects or even die. But the chance is not significantly higher than just living a normal life, so long as people are taking common sense precautions.

Add in the fact that these guys will be as closely monitored by health professionals as practically anyone else on the planet. One key to fighting this has proven to be early detection, so their odds are certainly better than anyone just out walking around.
 

Jer

Opinionated
Feb 28, 2006
22,688
21,070
10,030
I'd assume it's because the way our system works, agree or disagree, telling an employer you looked up a bunch of information on your own without a degree or certification to show for it, won't get you hired or in a position that has the most reliable income.

I’ve interviewed roughly 400 developers, analysts, and managers over the past 10 years. I have never looked at somebody’s degree or asked about their formal education. I’ve found that means little to nothing in the technology and insurance sectors where experience and hands-on learning give me everything I need to know about a candidate. In the 5 or so years prior to that, I would pay attention to degree and almost always found those that didn’t have a formal degree worked harder to learn than those that did.

There are professions where a degree is helpful, and always will be (engineering, chemistry, biology, etc) but those are decreasing in number in my opinion. MBAs, Liberal Arts, etc just don’t sway me personally when interviewing.
 

Cyclonepride

Thought Police
Staff member
Apr 11, 2006
96,801
57,995
113
53
A pineapple under the sea
www.oldschoolradical.com
I’ve interviewed roughly 400 developers, analysts, and managers over the past 10 years. I have never looked at somebody’s degree or asked about their formal education. I’ve found that means little to nothing in the technology and insurance sectors where experience and hands-on learning give me everything I need to know about a candidate. In the 5 or so years prior to that, I would pay attention to degree and almost always found those that didn’t have a formal degree worked harder to learn than those that did.

There are professions where a degree is helpful, and always will be (engineering, chemistry, biology, etc) but those are decreasing in number in my opinion. MBAs, Liberal Arts, etc just don’t sway me personally when interviewing.

I think a lot of places use degrees as a candidate filter.
 

FOREVERTRUE

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2017
1,155
1,330
113
45
I think a lot of places use degrees as a candidate filter.

I think a lot of places do or used to just for the simple fact it shows that the individual has at least set, worked toward, and achieved a major goal. However the same can be found out during an interview process even if it isn't of the same scope.
 

clonedude

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
30,858
26,077
113
Add in the fact that these guys will be as closely monitored by health professionals as practically anyone else on the planet. One key to fighting this has proven to be early detection, so their odds are certainly better than anyone just out walking around.

Who is going to be paying for all these players to get tested every day? Just curious?

That could be close to 150 tests a day.
 

Statefan10

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 20, 2019
19,984
24,832
113
I don't know how frequently they'd plan on testing, but I am pretty certain that the schools will pay for them.
If the conferences are going to use similar approaches, each conference is going to provide funding for testing I would guess. It's the conferences deciding to play, so they should pony up some of the cash.
 

RealisticCy

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2014
1,598
2,514
113
Ames, IA
Who is going to be paying for all these players to get tested every day? Just curious?

That could be close to 150 tests a day.

I don't know how frequently they'd plan on testing, but I am pretty certain that the schools will pay for them.

I would say either the athletic department needs to find the funds (or find a donor), or the conferences that decide to play.

Iowa State University isn't going to have any funds available to serially test a specific group multiple times weekly. Pollard's letter alluded to a $114 million hit to the university already.....wait until the state has to cut support for secondary education based on tax revenues, as well as additional losses of revenue and costs to the university in the upcoming fall and spring semesters.
 

diaclone

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
8,216
8,092
113
Metro Omaha
I think a lot of places use degrees as a candidate filter.
Yep. When I'd interview folks, they had to have a degree for the positions (IT developers or biz analysts). The interview conversation told me whether they continued to learn, or had the skills, or were viable leaders.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron