New Mexico first state to say no high school football

  • Fanatics -

    Thank you for your patience today and welcome to the newest version of Cyclone Fanatic!

    Most of the changes we have made are very simple, but will greatly improve your user experience while visiting the website.

    We have upgraded our forum software to speed things up. Our homepage is much cleaner and should be even more mobile friendly than before.

    We appreciate your loyalty and are committed to not only keeping Cyclone Fanatic in tip-top shape, but continuing to build this community for the next decade and beyond.

    We ask that if you are experiences any glitches to let us know in this thread . Will will be diligently working on the site all day.

    Thanks again.

    Chris Williams - Publisher

Dopey

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2009
2,091
726
113
Bummer. I feel like most smaller schools recruit athletes during their senior year. I'm sure a lot of kids get scholarship money for colleges they might not attend otherwise due to that year of play. Just a shame the effects of this.
 

farminclone

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2009
5,817
5,454
113
I don't see that helping with anything.

High school kids here couldn't work out together until July 6th for fall sports, but all summer before that they were playing pick up basketball, baling hay, kayaking/canoeing/tubing, going to pool parties, hanging out at each other's houses, etc all together. Buuuuut we had to make sure the weight room is closed until July 6th for their safety.

Teens will congregate and spread the virus anywhere they are at, so I don't see this measure making any impact at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Royalclone

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
2,355
2,339
113
58
Premature, IMO.
How so? As a former HS football coach, I would rather know now that we were not going to have a season, than bust my rear end preparing for a season, or even start practice and then have it cancelled.
Since I no longer coach, I really don't care one way or another, it sucks for the kids, but how many would not be allowed to play this year anyway because of the virus?

Until we change the rule to only the infected kid has to sit out, instead of the whole team for 14 days, we can never have a season. Better to make this decision now, than in 3 weeks when practice is gearing up and getting underway.
Today Iowa announced 744 new cases, its getting worse out there not better, and this virus is going to be with us for awhile.
 

madguy30

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2011
23,189
18,159
113
I don't see that helping with anything.

High school kids here couldn't work out together until July 6th for fall sports, but all summer before that they were playing pick up basketball, baling hay, kayaking/canoeing/tubing, going to pool parties, hanging out at each other's houses, etc all together. Buuuuut we had to make sure the weight room is closed until July 6th for their safety.

Teens will congregate and spread the virus anywhere they are at, so I don't see this measure making any impact at all.
Good points but did any of those include any sort of legal adult supervision or liability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyfanatic

Cyclonepride

Thought Police
Staff member
Apr 11, 2006
87,605
39,338
113
50
A pineapple under the sea
www.oldschoolradical.com
How so? As a former HS football coach, I would rather know now that we were not going to have a season, than bust my rear end preparing for a season, or even start practice and then have it cancelled.
Since I no longer coach, I really don't care one way or another, it sucks for the kids, but how many would not be allowed to play this year anyway because of the virus?

Until we change the rule to only the infected kid has to sit out, instead of the whole team for 14 days, we can never have a season. Better to make this decision now, than in 3 weeks when practice is gearing up and getting underway.
Today Iowa announced 744 new cases, its getting worse out there not better, and this is virus is going to be with for awhile.
They should change the rule.
 

farminclone

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2009
5,817
5,454
113
Good points but did any of those include any sort of legal adult supervision or liability.
I'm sure not. Is there liability if someone happens to die from a football-related injury? I'm not sure how all that works but there is already a certain amount of risk and liability in playing football before considering the vrius.
 

madguy30

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2011
23,189
18,159
113
I'm sure not. Is there liability if someone happens to die from a football-related injury? I'm not sure how all that works but there is already a certain amount of risk and liability in playing football before considering the vrius.
There would definitely be an investigation if a kid died at practice due to a football related injury to check for safety measures, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SEIOWA CLONE

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
2,355
2,339
113
58
Liability is a word that is leading to a whole lot of overreaction.
Sure it is, we live in a sue first culture, so schools and coaches always have to be ready to defend what they are doing. Best case practices, they tell us.
Say some kid is playing and get the virus, and is permanently injured or dies from it, do you think the parents are going to just sit there and say, "its Gods will" and let it go, hell no, they will be suing the coaches, the school and everyone else involved.
For many the risk is not worth it, until they get some guidance from the state that they can use as a reason for having a season, many will not be playing.

Yes there is liability if a player is seriously injured or killed while at practice or in a game. I know of coaches that were taping when they went through the helmet warning about leading with your head and becoming paralyzed from a blow to the head. We cut out saying phrasing, like "get your head in their", because of liability issues if a player was hurt or injured. Today if a kid get a blow to the head, by state mandate he must leave the game or practice and cannot return unless cleared by a doctor.
Safety is in everything now, everyone is afraid of getting sued.
 
Last edited:

mdk2isu

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2013
4,707
3,677
113
Not of this World
Sure it is, we live in a sue first culture, so schools and coaches always have to be ready to defend what they are doing. Best case practices, they tell us.
Say some kid is playing and get the virus, and is permanently injured or dies from it, do you think the parents are going to just sit there and say, "its Gods will" and let it go, hell no, they will be suing the coaches, the school and everyone else involved.
For many the risk is not worth it, until they get some guidance from the state that they can use as a reason for having a season, many will not be playing.
If that is the mentality of the player/their family, they shouldnt participate in the first place. Dont most, if not all, schools require the signing of a participation waiver? Language could be added to include COVID to those.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heitclone

cygrads

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2007
3,835
1,415
113
Altoona, IA
I would rather prepare and be ready to play if it's possible rather than pull the plug early and then find out later that rules, guidance and positive tests changed and you could have played. If they have to pull the plug right before the season then fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heitclone

farminclone

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2009
5,817
5,454
113
Sure it is, we live in a sue first culture, so schools and coaches always have to be ready to defend what they are doing. Best case practices, they tell us.
Say some kid is playing and get the virus, and is permanently injured or dies from it, do you think the parents are going to just sit there and say, "its Gods will" and let it go, hell no, they will be suing the coaches, the school and everyone else involved.
For many the risk is not worth it, until they get some guidance from the state that they can use as a reason for having a season, many will not be playing.
I don't see how we can open schools back up, then. Wouldn't the standard be the same for a student that just attended class and had these issues vs getting the disease while at football?

Same goes for stores, restaurants, parks, etc - if people don't have the ability to make the decision themselves and live with the consequences in football, how is it different for anything else that is opened up?
 

Cyclonepride

Thought Police
Staff member
Apr 11, 2006
87,605
39,338
113
50
A pineapple under the sea
www.oldschoolradical.com
Sure it is, we live in a sue first culture, so schools and coaches always have to be ready to defend what they are doing. Best case practices, they tell us.
Say some kid is playing and get the virus, and is permanently injured or dies from it, do you think the parents are going to just sit there and say, "its Gods will" and let it go, hell no, they will be suing the coaches, the school and everyone else involved.
For many the risk is not worth it, until they get some guidance from the state that they can use as a reason for having a season, many will not be playing.
Yeah, I'm a big fan of individual responsibility, and with something like this, there is no way to definitively determine where exposure happened. Liability should be legally limited, and those who want to participate should sign a waiver. I think this would solve a lot of issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joel Jensen

agrabes

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2006
1,505
261
83
I think this is inevitable. I mean let's think about high school football, the benefits and risks along with potential mitigations as it relates to the virus.

Risks:
Team and staff could infect each other, along with students at the school. This can be mitigated partially by having the kids social distance, but this is high school. You can't put the kids in anything like a "bubble". They're living at home with their families, who are also likely not living in a "bubble." No real way to mitigate risk of the players themselves being infected outside the game, then passing it along through the game.

Fans at events could cause large scale spreading of the virus. This could be mitigated by having games without fans. However, since the games aren't televised, is there a point to playing them?

I think in order to play responsibly, you must do it without fans.

Benefits (Fanless Games):
Players gain the psychological benefits of playing in team sports, get exercise, etc.
Players have fun by playing the game they love.

So, is it worth it to play a game without fans at the high school level? I don't think that playing games without fans significantly increases the risk of spreading the virus, assuming the kids are having school in person. But, what's the gain of doing it?

My guess is that high school sports will not happen this year because there's at least some risk without much real benefit, with the possible exception of individual sports like track, swimming, or cross country. I think if next year rolls around and we're in the same place we are now in terms of the virus, then we will have sports again despite the risk because the long term negatives of eliminating team sports for multiple years are worth the risk.
 

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
2,355
2,339
113
58
If that is the mentality of the player/their family, they shouldnt participate in the first place. Dont most, if not all, schools require the signing of a participation waiver? Language could be added to include COVID to those.
I have been told those waivers mean nothing in a court of law by school lawyers. They look and sound good, but in reality, they mean little to nothing.
 
Last edited:

Gunnerclone

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2010
40,165
31,550
113
DSM
I don't see how we can open schools back up, then. Wouldn't the standard be the same for a student that just attended class and had these issues vs getting the disease while at football?

Same goes for stores, restaurants, parks, etc - if people don't have the ability to make the decision themselves and live with the consequences in football, how is it different for anything else that is opened up?
yikes this is getting dicey now. These are minor children were talking about at this level. At some point the empathy to give a **** about these kids long term health has to take precedence.
 

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
2,355
2,339
113
58
I don't see how we can open schools back up, then. Wouldn't the standard be the same for a student that just attended class and had these issues vs getting the disease while at football?

Same goes for stores, restaurants, parks, etc - if people don't have the ability to make the decision themselves and live with the consequences in football, how is it different for anything else that is opened up?
Sure its the same, the difference is the political pressure being applied to open up schools, so parents can return to work. That same political pressure is not being applied to playing sports.

As a teacher, I think we will start the school year, we currently are planning 2 days on, Wednesday online and clean everything, and then 2 more days on. But we also realize the first case of the virus in the school, we will shut down and go entirely online.
The Wednesday cleaning will be used to lessen liability if the school is sued for a child getting the virus. Always remember the phrase "best practices".