Any thoughts if stressed budgets and potential liabilities played a larger role in cancellation ? If not was it geographically driven as D1 is borders Philly?
Did other factors play into endo of season decisions?
- Thread starter D1sideline
- Start date
That makes sense in such an unstable climate. As coaches I'm sure that's been overlooked to an extent due to our nature
I know first hand that several schools were fearful from a liability perspective. All it would take is one litigious parent of one sick or god forbid dead kid and the whole system is blown away. I know at the college level many schools had the kids sign waivers to reduce the possibility of lawsuits and litigation. I’m curious as to why that wasn’t considered at the high school level.
I've been wondering about this. There are a handful of kids each year that die from heatstroke, head/neck injuries, and other football related issues, as well as the initial indications about long term risk from concussions could be serious, yet the game is still played.
I realize its early, but it doesn't seem like there is anything like that for Covid? Seems a little reactionary to me.
I realize its early, but it doesn't seem like there is anything like that for Covid? Seems a little reactionary to me.
New- but numbers are down across the board in most areas which I believe are directly related to the increased knowledge of the dangers of concussions
Hard to see how a year without football isn't going to have a big impact for years to come. Lots of kids who would have played on a freshman or JV team this year, whether they've played organized football before or not, won't be coming out to play next year. And many younger kids who would have developed the habit of playing football--and it is a habit--as part of a a midget or CYO team will never develop that habit. Think of all the high school teams that barely have the critical mass of players needed and then think if they can field a team or a competitive team with 10-20% fewer players. I was astonished to see how few players state champion Archbishop Wood had on the sidelines last year.
Tulla I don't think there will be a middle ground come next year. Either kids will flock to the game in record numbers because they realize they want to be part of it, or we will see a large reduction in participation. The game will not tread water. I hope absence makes the heart grow stronger, but right now I am seeing kids find that other sports and activities can fill that fall void and I am worried.
S&J: I guess I wasn't thinking about it from that angle. Its just that with Covid, there aren't any known significant short or long term risks to healthy teenagers, and some schools aren't playing. Yet football players do pass away each year and we keep playing with those same risks. The young man from LaSalle is a good recent example.
It may or may not affect the numbers out for the sport. But I do think the risk is overblown based on other football risks we accept. And that the secondary risk to parents/grandparents is well known by now. At risk people need to stay safe, either by staying away, or by keeping their child out of risky situations.
It may or may not affect the numbers out for the sport. But I do think the risk is overblown based on other football risks we accept. And that the secondary risk to parents/grandparents is well known by now. At risk people need to stay safe, either by staying away, or by keeping their child out of risky situations.
Many districts did have parents sign waivers... CB schools had two waivers.
How can anyone say with any certainty there aren't long term risks when the virus is not yet a year old? I think the biggest issue is that school districts have so many other things to worry about that postponing sports was an easy way to table it until they could figure out the educational piece. The risk factor is an easy way to deflect attention away from real issues of staffing, virtual learning, new guidelines on cleaning/sanitizing, etc. All of these were non-issues just a year ago & now they have to figure out a way to budget for and meet standards they weren't prepared for.
If anyone thinks that sports was high on the priority list for a Superintendent then I have some beachfront property in Nebraska for sale for you
How can anyone say with any certainty there aren't long term risks when the virus is not yet a year old? I think the biggest issue is that school districts have so many other things to worry about that postponing sports was an easy way to table it until they could figure out the educational piece.
I think many people, including myself, say the following: "How can anyone say there ARE long term risks (to teenagers) when the virus is not yet a year old." Every other coronavirus doesn't have any long term risk that we've not lived with.
Having said that, I think you are exactly correct about school districts being worried about other things other than athletics.
When you say that "Every other coronavirus doesn't have any long term risk that we've not lived with" you should also note that so far this virus has had several symptoms no other such virus has had. I'm not saying that's a reason to shut everything down, but it's a reason to be very careful.
I think one of the main issues is how schools that have re-organized their days and weeks (e.g., different start and end times for different classes, some students coming in the first two days of the week and others coming in the last two days, etc.) can possibly have practice times that make sense for teams. It'll be interesting to see how many games are played, how many players suit up, and how in the world there will be playoffs.
tulla, I don't disagree with your comment or not_a_fan's as being possible. I just like to push back on the "unknown" = "bad" way of thinking.
In March, when seeing China and New York City and Italy, I was all-in to the "unknown" = "bad. But now, I don't buy into that - I think its more nuanced.
In March, when seeing China and New York City and Italy, I was all-in to the "unknown" = "bad. But now, I don't buy into that - I think its more nuanced.
All very good insights........ and althougb i believe this virus is the "blizzard" that only produced flurries, i totally understand the liability & obligation of superintendents & boards to prioritize other educational and legal issues ahead of sports....... i just wish they would have let parents and coaches play a larger role & accept liability for any virus related illness. As they have more invested
There is the risk of injury every player takes and usually understands when he goes on to the field. The difference with COVID is that the risk doesn't come from another player's helmet but from the breath of another player (who probably doesn't know he's infected). There's even a risk to the player who never gets into the game and to the coach or trainer from being in the locker room or riding on the bus with an infected person. I understand the risk may be very very small in many, but not all, of the situations, but we don't really know yet how small it is.
I am in favor of allowing teams to play (because I think the benefits outweigh the risks) as long as the community infection rate is truly low, and I don't think a team needs to call off the season if one player gets COVID, but nobody should be absolute about the situation