Utah @ 
Baylor How much risk is too much?
Welcome to Ute Hub › Forums › Utah Utes Sports › Football › How much risk is too much?
- This topic has 25 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 4 months ago by
Stone.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
StoneParticipantCurious what the people making the decisions on cancelling the college football season would say. Regardless of what you think Covid’s risks are, there is and always will be risk for college football players (whether it be Covid, seasonal flu, some other yet-unknown-virus, death from a freak tackle, severe brain injury, etc.), so some amount must be acceptable, but what is that number?
-
GameForAnyFussParticipant42. The number is 42.
In cases like this, you can’t quantify risk that way. I think the problem here is that COVID is not a known and accepted risk of football. All football players understand that there are risks of CTE, knee injuries, broken bones, etc. But nobody signed up to get an illness with potentially life-altering consequences. That’s the issue here.
-
UtesbyfiveParticipantCovid is a risk of life, not football. I’m just not sure why people think that catching a case one way, is somehow different than catching a case another. We’re all gonna get this thing. Rip off the damn band-aid and accept it. We’re giant pussies in this day and age. People used to live with uncontrolled small pox for craps sake. Life isn’t safe, or fair. Welcome to the new normal, quit cowering in fear.
-
StoneParticipant
Preach! I keep hearing of people that are shocked… shocked, I tell you, that cases increased a lockdown ended (see e.g., Hawaii). As if the virus would just go its merry way if we closed the curtains and locked the doors for a few months. The young and healthy should carry on, get over it, and get ourselves herd immunity, ala Sweden.
-
-
StoneParticipant
My understanding though is that many players (and coaches) ARE willing to sign up for that risk. But they are being overruled by administrators. So the adminsitrators are deciding that a certain risk level is too much and cannot be assumed. What is their basis? How do they decide, going forward for example, whether a the seasonal flu (which changes every year in terms of deadlinesss) is too severe?
Kids are more likely to die of seasonal flu than covid. But we let it ride during flu season. If the rationale is one death is one death too many, how can we ever open schools again? My point is simply that there is risk always. So some amount must be acceptable. So how are we going to make these decisions going forward?
A separate issue that bugs me here (not related to your post) is WTF were these people doing the last few months? How did they not figure out a plan? Other leagues are doing it. Also, things are not actually getting worse – they are getting better. “We are following the experts,” they say. Such a cop out. A leader can listen to experts, and may follow their advice, but say that they made a decision after balancing all aspects. If I made every decision based on what an ER doc told me was safe, I could say I was “following the experts,” but I would need to live life in a padded bubble.
-
GameForAnyFussParticipant
The other thing you have to consider is the reward associated with the risk. For example, we all take a risk every time we get into a car. But most of us conclude that the risk is worth the reward, so we go anyway.
What’s the risk/reward calculation for going ahead with college football during this pandemic? The risk of catching an illness that carries with it a good chance of getting myocarditis, and the reward is…giving a bunch of men something to watch on a Saturday?
-
UtesbyfiveParticipant
Again, explain to me the difference in catching the disease in classes and playing football, vs sitting at home doing nothing, and deciding to hang with friends and you get it there. What’s the difference?
-
Central Coast UteParticipantLast I read getting myocarditis from covid was really rare. What is the “good chance” of getting it? 1 in 10? I think it’s less than that but I’m wondering what you consider a good chance to be.
-
Utesby1
ParticipantThe reward is simple. It is at least $80-$120 M. I can take a lot of risk for that amount of money. I always like to take on risk, as long as the return is there, that I can partially or completely control. With frequent testing and other safety measures the conferences could partially control the risk.
I hope another conference plays and then at the end of the season we can compare their severe Covid cases to the Covid cases of a school that did not play. I cannot wait to see of the teams playing are actually lower.
One more rant, if 3 conferences play and two do not then it will mean at least $1B in lost revenue to the conference. I cannot wait until the Presidents and Athletic directors startcomplaining that they don’t get the same as their counterparts in other conferences. The revenue lost can never be made up under the present revenue sharing model.
-
StoneParticipant
The risk/reward is not player risk vs. fan reward. It is player risk versus player reward. If the players want to play, LET THEM PLAY. They are adults. If they think the reward (e.g., joy of playing a final season of a game to which they have dedicated thousands of hours, possible career in NFL, etc.) outweighs the risks, LET THEM PLAY.
Enough of this paternalistic bulls**t. Let grown-ups make their own risk / reward decisions. If you don’t think the risk outweighs the reward, nobody is forcing you to leave your home. But respect the right of others to make decisions for themselves.
I think the risk of a car accident outweighs the benefits. Instead of me simply ceasing to drive. I prohibit anyone else from driving. Brilliant.
-
-
EagleMountainUteParticipantOn your last paragraph Ithink it is 100% a political move rather than risk based.
For one it is connected to the election. Second it is connected to ever changing “science” or rather scientist trying to get famous/money off of an unavoidable tragedy. Third it has lots to do with the student union movement. Which I think they have some fair points other than the revenue sharing percentage being that high.
-
SkinyUteParticipantYou think University Presidents would voluntarily decide to forego billions of dollars in both school exposure and actual revenue in favor of playing politics?
Sure dude.
-
EagleMountainUteParticipant
Don’t call me dude as if you want to have a debate. Just use an insult like a real person.
You are saying months and months of planning with all of the data they had. Including examples from the NBA and MLB. That a report on a known heart condition linked to several other existing viruses made them change their mind in a week?
It is politics and yes presidents and many many others sacrifice money all of the time. Not like they are not going to get paid. This will most likely end Cal’s entire athletics program because they operate on such a heavy deficit.
I was also already told “money talks” when I already predicted this season not happening.
-
SkinyUteParticipant
A University President’s primary job is to ensure the school makes money. Period. The idea that every single President would voluntarily vote for an action that causes every P12 school to lose their primary revenue stream just so they can play stupid political games is laughable on its face.
I believe that they made an incredibly difficult decision in the interests of the health and safety of not only the athletes, but the staff, the coaches, and the general public. You’re right, money talks. And if they thought they could ensure the safety of everyone, they voted to play the season with absolutely zero hesitation.
-
EagleMountainUteParticipant
It took them how long to announce an abreviated schedule vs the time it took to shut down until spring? It doesn’t make sense. Usually based on my experience things that make little sense or logic are politically motivated. The timing defies logic.
-
Central Coast UteParticipant
Universities have never been worried about liability before. They’ve somehow managed to get by for decades with all of the injuries. Now we know what CTE does to people, even making them depressed and suicidal but they still put the kids out there. Now they’re suddenly afraid of virus? I’m 100% sure that’s not it. They had a schedule, then #weareunited came out. Now suddenly covid is too dangerous. Whatever.
-
EagleMountainUteParticipant
Not even touching on the prescription drugs they load these kids up on so they can play each week. Yeah they really do put the well being of these “STUDENT” athletes first.
-
-
MDUteParticipantJust FYI, athletics is NOT a university’s primary revenue source…and it’s not even close. The U of U had $4.83B in 2019 revenues. The athletic department, including football revenues, was under $100M in revenues. Athletics is less than 2% of the University’s overall annual revenue. I’m not saying that athletics and football, in particular, don’t bring in a lot of money…they do. But in the big picture of the overall University budget that Presidents look at, Athletics is a small line item. Anyone interested can look at the University’s financial report which is public record and posted every year.
U of U Financial Report – Income Statement on page 10-
SkinyUteParticipant
Thanks for that clarification, I apparently overestimated how much revenue sports brings in compared to the overall revenue.
I do think the point still stands, however. They’re not going to voluntarily give up $100M just so they can play politics.
-
Central Coast UteParticipant
The rumblings around here are Cal Berkely’s athletic department might not survive, especially if it doesnt go in spring. They took out a huge loan for their football stadium and haven’t had the ROI they had hoped for.
People are willing to burn everything to the ground. I think you’re underestimating what people will pay for politics.-
SkinyUteParticipant
People are willing to burn everything to the ground. I think you’re underestimating what people will pay for politics.
What political statement is it that you think they’re making here, exactly?
-
EagleMountainUteParticipant
System of oppressor and oppressed. Its communism my friend.
It is actually Cal and fUCLA with the shortfalls. Cal is in the red heavy though.
-
SkinyUteParticipant
So in your mind, University Presidents are willing to forgo hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue to their schools because of…communism.
I’m not even sure how to respond to that, to be honest. Other than to observe that you and I do truly live in entirely different realities.
-
EagleMountainUteParticipant
No you asked for a political statement of why people let things burn. Look at all of these cities screaming persecution and oppression. All run for years and years by leftists radicals.
As far as the decision to suddenly cancel the season I do think there is a certain sinister element at work to damage the local economies still in the name of politics. I have zero proof. But neo Marxist are working hard. If you want to believe it is in the name of social justice continue on believing that. Reality is leftist extremism is on the move.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
EagleMountainUteParticipant
-
Central Coast UteParticipant
The thing is, everyone knows the risks of playing football. They even tell you up front about CTE now and you make the choice to play. They’re claiming not to know enough about covid, so it’s acceptable to cancel the season. If you ask me, it was perfect timing for the universities for the #weareunited movement. I’m sure they ruffled a lot of feathers and this gives them the perfect excuse to put the players off.
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
