UMass Announces Intention To Play Football in Fall 2020 | Page 5 | The Boneyard

UMass Announces Intention To Play Football in Fall 2020

UConnDogs in his signature role as Andy Durfresne, "How can you be that obtuse?"

Chief as "The warden" while looking up the meaning of obtuse, "What did you call me? Give him 30 days isolation without my insights on UConn athletics and medical science."

"Thank you. I'll take the 30 days."
 
Last edited:
uconndogs said:
For god sake Biz. We have somebody speaking of themselves in the third person as an authority on this. What better science could you possibly want?
Expand ...
businesslawyer said:
There is nowhere near a consensus among doctors that healthy young men who get covid and then reqover are going to be free from long term consequences of this. A leading pulmonologist in the area thinks there is a good chance that young men who don't get sick when they have the virus will have a much greater risk of issues down the road.

No one knows for sure how great the risks being taken to play are, and it will be 40 years before we know for sure how much damage the LSU football team -- if it was planned that they all just be exposed to it early -- will suffer for the choice. A little more patience for the other side of the debate -- whichever side you're on -- would be much smarter than this discussion. Because not one person in the world knows for sure what the long range consequences will be.
Expand ...
With due respect, this is some fascinating logic. Under this theory we would still be huddled in caves.
businesslawyer said:
I'll try one more time. You can rationally conclude that college football players are highly unlikely to die from the virus before recovering. There is a medical consensus to support that. You have no idea whether their organs will, however, be permanently weakened from having had the virus and the odds are much higher that they will pay a price long term. You can't know this because the medical community can't know it until it gets to see how people who had it fare LONG TERM.
Expand ...
Your logic is stunning
businesslawyer said:
I'll try one more time. You can rationally conclude that college football players are highly unlikely to die from the virus before recovering. There is a medical consensus to support that. You have no idea whether their organs will, however, be permanently weakened from having had the virus and the odds are much higher that they will pay a price long term. You can't know this because the medical community can't know it until it gets to see how people who had it fare LONG TERM.
Expand ...
Hornet22 said:
Totally agree with you here.

It’s so amazing to me how quickly people (fans) are ready to say, “These kids will be fine.” Mind you it’s not their kid and it’s all for Their entertainment on Saturdays. It’s eye opening how these players‘ lives are valued. I could live without college football for a year if it means doctors and science can get more clarity on this virus.
Way too many unknowns in these early stages
Expand ...
I suggest we use known information and data instead of specious logic built upon speculation about some future unknown long term effect without any basis for it. "I think there will be long-term sequelae, said Yale cardiologist Dr. Joseph Brennan, using the medical term for a disease’s downstream effects. "I don’t know that for real,” he cautioned." So, the experts are saying things on speculation. Yet, it's seized upon as having some merit. Further to the point, 23% of New York citizens have been infected. If anything, being in an active a protective protocol with bi-weekly testing, daily access to medical staff and better oversight is intrinsically less risky than being a knucklehead in the general population. These are arguments are faulty, and rather than being obtuse, those questioning the soundness of the long term effect argument de jure, are incisive.
 
BlueDogs said:
I suggest we use known information and data instead of specious logic built upon speculation about some future unknown long term effect without any basis for it. "I think there will be long-term sequelae, said Yale cardiologist Dr. Joseph Brennan, using the medical term for a disease’s downstream effects. "I don’t know that for real,” he cautioned." So, the experts are saying things on speculation. Yet, it's seized upon as having some merit.
Expand ...

I understand the point you are trying to make (and don't disagree in theory) but in all fairness, the good doctor from Yale made that comment back @ the beginning of April. The virus was quite fresh @ the time. Tough to prove long term effects in a few months. There are ongoing studies from “Covid Clinics” across the country (including the Winchester Chest Clinic @ Yale New Haven) compiling data and comparing/categorizing long term effects (if less than 9-10 months can be considered long term). They are also comparing known long term health effects from previous SARS viruses to SARS-CoV-2 and finding some correlations. It’s just too early to flick away any concerns with so much still unknown (IMO).
 
businesslawyer said:
I'll try one more time. You can rationally conclude that college football players are highly unlikely to die from the virus before recovering. There is a medical consensus to support that. You have no idea whether their organs will, however, be permanently weakened from having had the virus and the odds are much higher that they will pay a price long term. You can't know this because the medical community can't know it until it gets to see how people who had it fare LONG TERM.
Expand ...

How about the organs being effected from playing football such as the brain, no one cares about that, more brain injuries playing football in the spring btw.
 
Hornet22 said:
Brain injuries, CTE (while very real and scary) is not contagious. This argument is tired
Expand ...

I expected a holier then thou response like this. Ok what does playing have to do with spreading the virus. You keep then on campus in a bubble. Have mass testing so you will have positive tests results and kids are safer on campus. Jobs have to deal with this and and grocery stores should we deny people that too.

Players are well aware of the health risks every year playing football and covid if they can pull it off safely let them play. The government has no right to deny someone their profession if they are being responsible.
 
.-.
BlueDogs said:
With due respect, this is some fascinating logic. Under this theory we would still be huddled in caves.

Your logic is stunning


I suggest we use known information and data instead of specious logic built upon speculation about some future unknown long term effect without any basis for it. "I think there will be long-term sequelae, said Yale cardiologist Dr. Joseph Brennan, using the medical term for a disease’s downstream effects. "I don’t know that for real,” he cautioned." So, the experts are saying things on speculation. Yet, it's seized upon as having some merit. Further to the point, 23% of New York citizens have been infected. If anything, being in an active a protective protocol with bi-weekly testing, daily access to medical staff and better oversight is intrinsically less risky than being a knucklehead in the general population. These are arguments are faulty, and rather than being obtuse, those questioning the soundness of the long term effect argument de jure, are incisive.
Expand ...
You realize, right, that when talking about the future no one ever KNOWS with metaphysical certainty. That doesn't mean you shouldn't make the best projections, predictions and assumptions you can make based on what you do know about this disease and other diseases that already exist.
 
Scoe said:
I expected a holier then thou response like this. Ok what does playing have to do with spreading the virus. You keep then on campus in a bubble. Have mass testing so you will have positive tests results and kids are safer on campus. Jobs have to deal with this and and grocery stores should we deny people that too.

Players are well aware of the health risks every year playing football and covid if they can pull it off safely let them play. The government has no right to deny someone their profession if they are being responsible.
Expand ...
Here is what you’re not considering. Every team is not playing by the rules. And if you think they are you’re being naive. Sure, you can control your team. But you’ll never be able to convince me that every team is playing by the contact tracing rules
 
.-.
A few teams with open dates, UMass gonna pack the bus for a December trip west?
 
Last edited:
No games announced yet by UMASS! Could it just be a way to get in Practices sessions?
 
When this country declines into a depression, if we aren't there already, considering Big 12 fans don't even seem to acknowledge there's a virus going on, UConn football will look responsible, in the long run. This country is not going to be the same.

For those of you going off on Benedict, his last place of employment was Auburn. A school with an athletic department that very heavily focuses on football.
 
Butch said:
When this country declines into a depression, if we aren't there already, considering Big 12 fans don't even seem to acknowledge there's a virus going on, UConn football will look responsible, in the long run. This country is not going to be the same.

For those of you going off on Benedict, his last place of employment was Auburn. A school with an athletic department that very heavily focuses on football.
Expand ...
I believe DBs decisions are heavily influenced by BOT and major donors which may be to focus on Basketball this year.
 
HardFacts said:
No games announced yet by UMASS! Could it just be a way to get in Practices sessions?
Expand ...
When UMass announced they would play football this fall, I think it was SI that put out a piece asking who they were going to play as there were very few teams that they could even possibly schedule. We’ll see what they announce.
 
businesslawyer said:
You realize, right, that when talking about the future no one ever KNOWS with metaphysical certainty. That doesn't mean you shouldn't make the best projections, predictions and assumptions you can make based on what you do know about this disease and other diseases that already exist.
Expand ...
True. But, we ought not confuse science fact with unproven hypothesis.
 
.-.


>>Bell is organizing this without a set schedule, a specific opponent in place or a target date to serve as a jumping-off point in an abbreviated season.<<
 
It's been 2 weeks since they announced they would play this fall and no opponents have been announced yet. Which other schools are still available for them?
 
SubbaBub said:
If no one else is acknowledging the insanity of an independent trying to cobble a 6 game schedule together, I'm still fine with the decision to not play this year.
Expand ...
Same. I'm still a little sad I won't won't get to see a game live this year. Granted, the last time I went they were playing Boise St. So what like 7 or 8 years now. But its the first year I can actually afford season tickets since the Fiesta Bowl season
 
.-.
BugsyCT said:
It's been 2 weeks since they announced they would play this fall and no opponents have been announced yet.
Expand ...
huskymedic said:


>>Bell is organizing this without a set schedule, a specific opponent in place or a target date to serve as a jumping-off point in an abbreviated season.<<
Expand ...

Boston Globe take on UMass football

www.bostonglobe.com

UMass hopes decision to play football will kickstart desperately needed drive toward relevance and riches - The Boston Globe

Massachusetts' flagship university will play this fall – if it can find any opponents – despite being one of the losingest teams in the country. The decision to reverse course came at a time where the flagging football program needs any help it can get.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
 
The longer we go without UMass announcing games the more I think maybe someone in the administration put their foot down or gave them scheduling/traveling parameters they can't seem to make work with the few opportunities out there.
 
Exit 4 said:
The longer we go without UMass announcing games the more I think maybe someone in the administration put their foot down or gave them scheduling/traveling parameters they can't seem to make work with the few opportunities out there.
Expand ...
If that was a correct assumption then the administration would not allow them to open.
 
Slick said:
If that was a correct assumption then the administration would not allow them to open.
Expand ...

>>Athletic director Ryan Bamford said in an interview that the school’s chancellor, Kumble Subbaswamy, approved the team reversing course and returning to play so long as any expenses are offset by revenues.<<
 
Storrs South said:
Ummm...this doesn't happen for UMass in non-COVID years so how is that expected to happen now?
Expand ...

And so now Bamford is calling Benedict everyday again.... :rolleyes:
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,299
Messages
4,562,009
Members
10,453
Latest member
Storytory


Top Bottom