Poll: Should college football be played this fall?
Michael Smerconish (of SiriusXM Radio during weekday mornings and CNN on Saturday morning) has an interesting poll this morning that invites responses from everyone. As of 9 am this morning the results are: Yes - 16%, No - 84% (1412 votes so far).
Vote at https://www.smerconish.com/ Scroll to the bottom of the page for the voting section.
August 12th, 2020 at 9:55 AM ^
I have a poll you can play with. Haha.....
August 12th, 2020 at 10:51 AM ^
Pole? MeanJoe07 found a pole.
August 12th, 2020 at 11:00 AM ^
I liked poled pork. Anyone else?
August 12th, 2020 at 11:02 AM ^
Ah, my MGoArchEnemy. How have you been?
August 12th, 2020 at 1:40 PM ^
Not sure how you bear him???
August 12th, 2020 at 2:11 PM ^
Dr Pol?
August 12th, 2020 at 9:18 AM ^
If you’re on mobile you have to scroll thru a mile of click bait to find the poll which is the smallest text on the entire page.
August 12th, 2020 at 9:23 AM ^
MGoBloggers: "MGoBlog has too many ads and clickbait"
Smerconish.com: "Hold my beer"
August 12th, 2020 at 9:19 AM ^
Well if it’s Michael Smerconish’s poll i guess I have to participate.
August 12th, 2020 at 9:29 AM ^
Well, there's no use in Big Ten fans voting as the decision has been made, but what I would love to see is a similar poll done regionally by approximate conference footprint. The wild variations in risk assessment, cultural attachment to the sport and a few other things would be hidden in those results somewhere.
August 12th, 2020 at 9:44 AM ^
"Hidden?"
August 12th, 2020 at 10:21 AM ^
I’d love to see the poll with party affiliation included.
August 12th, 2020 at 10:34 AM ^
I'm quite certain the polling for this question would be extremely similar to polls asking things like 'Are masks effective?', 'Should schools be fully open this fall?', etc.
August 12th, 2020 at 4:16 PM ^
It seems pretty obvious.
August 12th, 2020 at 9:33 AM ^
Sorry, this poll is going to end up as biased as any poll held by a Fox News host. Attitudes about C-19 are undeniably centered on one's political beliefs - and those same beliefs will determine which host you listen to, and hence further limit/focus/direct your thought process. Relying on someone associated with CNN will yield a left-ish bias just as honestly as a Fox News hosted poll will yield a right-ish bias.
Try again, OP...
August 12th, 2020 at 9:49 AM ^
Not sure why you'd get down votes for that comment, other than maybe Fox will include how many self identified liberals, conservatives and in between were sampled so you can see how the poll is weighted politically.
Anyway, to add, online polls are worthless in any case.
August 12th, 2020 at 11:32 AM ^
It's also going to depend on whether the person cares about college football or not. Strangely enough, people who don't care about college football generally aren't interested in seeing it played.
August 12th, 2020 at 11:37 AM ^
"...people who don't care about college football..."
These people scare me - there is something inherently wrong with them that I cannot define. My wife is one of them, and I have never figured it out. I also sleep lightly - I mean, if you can't find enjoyment in CFB, da fuck is wrong with you?
August 12th, 2020 at 11:49 AM ^
98.12668% of the 84% people that voted "No" would vote the same if asked should college football ever be played again.
August 12th, 2020 at 12:41 PM ^
This is the population that is growing. A lot millennial families do not even let their children play football. I have a nephew is not allowed to play football even though he wants to. He is in the 8th grade and his parents will only allow him to play soccer, basketball and baseball. I'm not even sure if football will be sport in the next 20 years. It is just too dangerous.
August 12th, 2020 at 1:48 PM ^
I'll disagree, to a point. It will certainly still be a viable sport in 20 years, but yeah, it's popularity is beginning to fade.
And this is clearly on the NFL's shoulders because they covered up CTE, obfuscated long term injuries, and continue to fight the NFLPA on long term care. If they would have come clean, admitted the problems with CTE when they were first learned about, and significantly funded research and mitigations, they'd be fine. They can still do that - they can fund anti-concussion helmets for Pop Warner through high school, and lead the discussion. They can turn opinion back towards football.
But NFL owners are greedy. They will not throw $1B at a problem they can cover up. Even if that money would solve the problem while significantly - SIGNIFICANTLY - boosting public opinion of them personally and of their game.
And remember that $1B over a decade is loose pocket change to the NFL. That thing could spend $1B over the next two years without even breathing hard.
August 12th, 2020 at 2:47 PM ^
It’s getting close to that time where kids become a thought for us. We’d like to start a family in the next handful of years and I’d like a big catholic one that was once the norm so about 5 to 10 kids. There will be some football players, that I can guarantee.
August 14th, 2020 at 11:53 PM ^
Millenials are soft
August 12th, 2020 at 9:33 AM ^
Yes.
August 12th, 2020 at 9:33 AM ^
Maybe.
August 12th, 2020 at 9:52 AM ^
I'm playing with the idea of up voting all your comments no matter how inane just to see if we can get you to a positive number of MGoPoints.
August 12th, 2020 at 10:44 AM ^
I've been upvoting him for awhile now.
I think hes sort of funny
August 12th, 2020 at 10:55 AM ^
I have a conspiracy theory on this...I think he's MeanJoe07.
August 12th, 2020 at 10:05 PM ^
Could be.
They're both funny...in the head, that is.
August 12th, 2020 at 9:39 AM ^
No. The US fucked up their pandemic response and we must reap what we sow. Not only should CFB not be played we should be in full lock down right now.
And before some idiot says, "It's only a .01% death rate for college kids". Death and totally fine are not the only outcomes. The virus is not binary. A whole lot of people can end up with long term heart issues, blood clots, brain damage, and lung damage.
August 12th, 2020 at 9:51 AM ^
It is as simple of left wing thinking vs right wing thinking on this issue. You can stay at home and hope for the best. All the stay at home orders did was lengthen the time line. But, you can look at this two ways: mitigate or delay the spread so it is a binary issue.
It will take at least a full year to determine the long term impacts of covid. If these issues you list above remain by this time next year then you will be correct but it is premature to make these claims today. Better yet, we really won't know these impacts for a few years.
August 12th, 2020 at 9:58 AM ^
This oversimplification ignores the fact that during the stay at home order we should have been ramping up quick testing and contact tracing. The only reason I'm "hoping" for the best while staying home is that I there isn't a shred of evidence that our current leadership (and half the country) is taking this seriously.
August 12th, 2020 at 11:21 AM ^
The younger people are not staying home! That is the problem, most end up being super spreaders, some with no symptoms.
August 12th, 2020 at 11:31 AM ^
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
The number of cases came down drastically during the stay at home order, so it worked for its specified purpose. The problem was that we didn't do the other things we needed to do to maintain the lower number of cases after it was lifted.
August 12th, 2020 at 11:42 AM ^
My point is, that younger people may be compliant with stay at home orders for a few months but after that they will end up going out with their friends. This was the reason for the big rise in my state after the Memorial day and 4th of July holidays. There are big house parties going on all around my neighborhood and it is college students who have come back home for the past winter semester and through the summer.
August 12th, 2020 at 12:01 PM ^
Actually, there was a plan for ramping up testing and tracing, but the perception that the disease was only hitting certain states led it to be spiked.
August 12th, 2020 at 12:08 PM ^
US industry actually answered the call very well during the lockdown and rapidly boosted our supplies of masks, test kits, and contactless thermometers. Think about how quickly that went down. It was just a few weeks before they were widespread.
The problem is simply that too many people haven't taken advantage of these tools.
August 12th, 2020 at 8:34 PM ^
This oversimplification assumes "not seriously" means, "not agreeing with BlockM".
Disagreement does not mean what you think it means.
If I were to suggest that 2+2 = 5, and then argue that anyone who disagrees with me doesn't take math seriously, should my opinion carry much weight after that?
Math is a pretty objective thing, whereas leadership is a 99.99% subjective thing. You and I can sit down and agree to talk about math. You say 2+2=4, I say sunsets are more red than orange. You would definitely have a case to say I'm not taking the problem seriously. But - if you say 2+2=4, and I say 2+2=5, I'm not failing to take the problem seriously, I'm simply coming up with a different answer.
Now that we're agreed that most people are taking this seriously, even if they're not coming up with the same answer as you, let's look at being a little more open minded. Please note, I'm not saying your responses are wrong (or right) - I'm simply suggesting that a bit less prejudice in the world isn't a bad thing.
August 12th, 2020 at 10:07 AM ^
Literally any graph of cases shows that cases per day stayed the same and then went down during the lock downs. The moment they were lifted the US went to 70,000 cases a day. The rest of the world has proven you can stop the spread. New Zealand had its first case in 100 days this week. Other countries literally have zero people dying a day. We have 1,500. The spread could have been stopped. How is it premature to make these claims? 150,000 people are dead. Thousands more already are having these issues. 10 Big Ten players already have myocarditis.
August 12th, 2020 at 11:42 AM ^
Lockdowns are effective. But they're not sustainable for very long. You need to restart economic activity after a while. Every country in the world that locked down in March reopened by June.
A number of countries are in a similar position as us, including much of Latin America, as well as India. Eventually you can't afford to keep 80% of the workforce at home so you have to open up.
New Zealand is a special case because they actually contained the virus as it entered their country. That genie is out of the bottle for us.
August 12th, 2020 at 1:07 PM ^
Exactly. Melbourne, Australia was down to zero cases until a group of females returned from overseas jobs and "partied" with the security staff at the hotel they were quarantined at. Next thing you know Melbourne is one of the worst cities in the world. It doesn't take much for it to spread and we can't lock down forever.
August 12th, 2020 at 1:18 PM ^
Ask New York how effective the lockdowns were. And Italy. And the rest of Europe and Japan and South Korea, etc., etc.
NOT following the stay at home orders helped lengthen the timeline. All these stupid states experiencing outbreaks right now either 1) never locked down or 2) did a half-ass lockdown and opened up bars and shit in early May. Go see how New York is doing now: they were hit the worst by far and now they rank among the states with the fewest cases.
August 13th, 2020 at 12:04 AM ^
New York is probably approaching herd immunity by now, which explains that. A lockdown delays herd immunity, which lengthens the timeline.
August 12th, 2020 at 10:24 AM ^
Speak for yourself on that lockdown Hoss. My state has zero current hospitalizations and has had like 2 COVID related deaths in the last 2 months.
August 12th, 2020 at 11:12 AM ^
It needed to be a uniform federal response. We saw what happened when states were allowed to come up with their own responses and we had a piecemeal response. It doesn't work.
August 12th, 2020 at 11:14 AM ^
Montana, Wyoming?
August 12th, 2020 at 11:41 AM ^
Sparsely populated states. Epidemics need density for growth - this is basic anthropology.
August 13th, 2020 at 4:11 PM ^
So we should not have a nationwide lockdown then if epidemics need density for growth and lots of areas have very few issues. The mayors and governors need to step up and provide leadership in those highly affected areas. The US is not going to do a nationwide lockdown.