 |
|
Yes, but none of that changes the impact of
Posted on: August 12, 2020 at 13:41:10 CT
ScottsdaleTiger MU
Posts:
12586
Member For:
25.25 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
Certainly, there are lots of objections to playing spring football, but this, hopefully, a one time situation.
The point is simply there is a scenario in which playing spring football could be more financially rewarding then then playing a fall schedule. The SEC's and ACC's decisions are not without risks.
It seems that the folks who are advocating playing this fall (or defending the SEC's and ACC's decisions to do so) are only offering up the arguments for doing so and are not discussing or considering the potential downside.
For example, LSU draws roughly 100,000 people to its home games. What about the possibility that 10,000 folks who attend the first game get infected and 150 of those folks die. Is that an acceptable outcome for a public university?
Edited by ScottsdaleTiger at 13:44:14 on 08/12/20
The point is simply there is a scenario in which playing spring football could be more financially rewarding then then playing a fall schedule. The SEC's and ACC's decisions are not without risks.
It seems that the folks who are advocating playing this fall (or defending the SEC's and ACC's decisions to do so) are only offering up the arguments for doing so and are not discussing or considering the potential downside.
For example, LSU draws roughly 100,000 people to its home games. What about the possibility that 10,000 folks who attend the first game get infected and 150 of those folks die. Is that an acceptable outcome for a public university?
Edited by ScottsdaleTiger at 13:44:14 on 08/12/20
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
Yes, but none of that changes the impact of - ScottsdaleTiger MU - 8/12 13:41:10