Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The bolded part interests me because it implies, as I read it, that we're sort of reducing it to taking risks is an act of being brave (or something akin to that).

But in reality, compartmentalizing risk isn't really an act of bravery. I went to a gathering 7 hours away with people from 3-4 different regions. It was in many ways risky on this front. But that doesn't make me brave. It makes me a person who pretends a risk isn't there. There are all sorts of moments like this, many that could be categorized as being irresponsible or reckless.

Now I'm not strongly saying little league is either of those last two things. But we often cast it as a case of doing a risky thing is a act with some nobility, and in a lot of cases, it really isn't.

The player are definitely not to blame. They want to play. It is the pencil necked geeks that run these institutions that are making this call.

The optics are 100% why this season is almost assuredly cancelled.

Does it look bad for your school if their left tackle, cornerback, middle linebacker, and 2 wide receivers catch the virus at home or at school during a cancelled season? Not particularly, or very minimally at worst. But does it look back when their left tackle, cornerback, middle linebacker, and 2 wide receivers catch the virus immediately after a game when they possibly could have spread it to several more teammates and opposing players they just faced? Undeniably yes. I get Trevor Lawrence's POV that players are just as likely to catch it outside of CFB but when they're catching it in the middle of season suddenly these schools look like ghouls pushing these poor kids to play football just so make a few bucks. It's 100% optics.

I don't. He talks about them going home and there won't be social distancing or masks, but whose damn fault is that? 

The truth is that within the game of football, you CANNOT protect against spread. You can't be 6 feet apart. You can't wear a mask and effectively play. So any positive case (even if missed by a test) is a significant risk to EVERY player on that field. 

At home, you control your risk. I've pointed out that a few times I've chosen to engage in behaviors with moderately more risk than staying home and only going out into society for absolute essentials. But I controlled those situations and whether I chose to engage in them or not. 

If he's arguing that players WON'T take precautions, that's not the fault of those who cancel football; it's the fault of those players not taking precautions. But the risk of being on a football field with an asymptomatic player is a LOT higher than the risk of encountering an asymptomatic grocery store employee stocking shelves who you stay several feet away from while you're wearing your mask. 

You simply don't have as much risk off the field as you do on it. 

(His other point about if you catch COVID as a player on campus that you'll have access to world-class medical care, which you may not have off campus, is valid and true though.)

The player are definitely not to blame. They want to play. It is the pencil necked geeks that run these institutions that are making this call.

Yes, the adults are stepping in.  Thankfully.

I don't. He talks about them going home and there won't be social distancing or masks, but whose damn fault is that?

The truth is that within the game of football, you CANNOT protect against spread. You can't be 6 feet apart. You can't wear a mask and effectively play. So any positive case (even if missed by a test) is a significant risk to EVERY player on that field.

At home, you control your risk. I've pointed out that a few times I've chosen to engage in behaviors with moderately more risk than staying home and only going out into society for absolute essentials. But I controlled those situations and whether I chose to engage in them or not.

If he's arguing that players WON'T take precautions, that's not the fault of those who cancel football; it's the fault of those players not taking precautions. But the risk of being on a football field with an asymptomatic player is a LOT higher than the risk of encountering an asymptomatic grocery store employee stocking shelves who you stay several feet away from while you're wearing your mask.

You simply don't have as much risk off the field as you do on it.

(His other point about if you catch COVID as a player on campus that you'll have access to world-class medical care, which you may not have off campus, is valid and true though.)

I think he meant on campus and in a structures fire. And chances are, that part is accurate. If you have a highly paid, professional staff building on you, your outcomes are most likely going to be better then a lot of the home situations here.

I wouldn’t speak to the actual playing football, that I just don’t know.

The bolded part interests me because it implies, as I read it, that we're sort of reducing it to taking risks is an act of being brave (or something akin to that).

But in reality, compartmentalizing risk isn't really an act of bravery. I went to a gathering 7 hours away with people from 3-4 different regions. It was in many ways risky on this front. But that doesn't make me brave. _{It makes me a person who pretends a risk isn't there.} There are all sorts of moments like this, many that could be categorized as being irresponsible or reckless.

Now I'm not strongly saying little league is either of those last two things. But we often cast it as a case of doing a risky thing is a act with some nobility, and in a lot of cases, it really isn't.

                         
How many other activities do you participate in where routine risk is treated as afterthought? Food poisoning from a restaurant? Rush hour driving? Receiving anesthetics for surgery? Leaving the Christmas lights on overnight? Drinking year after year? Going into the office during a flu season.

College football aside, too many of us are allowing COVID, and only COVID, to exploit our fear of death at the risk of putting our economic futures in severe jeopardy.                                 

Yes, the adults are stepping in.  Thankfully.

Technically I suppose they are adults in the sense that they are human beings who are more than 18 years removed from the birth canal. But their mentality, like yours, is rather childish; clinging the lofty ideologies of a college freshman, well into "adulthood."

I don't blame Nebraska if they go back to the Big 12 over this. I'm no attorney obviously, but there has to be some sort of breach of contract here. 

At the very least, they didn't know that they were signing up for a co-ed league, when they put their name on the dotted line.