Maybe I'm reading too much into this

Yup.  That is correct.

Clay Travis is a huge douche.  But he's not necessarily wrong.  Proving causation would be a tough task with respect to a microscopic virus.  

That said, it'd be unwise to make these critical decisions on the aggregate on the basis that an individual plaintiff would have difficulty proving that he contracted it in some way related to football.  PR backlash could be nightmare; the court of public opinion rarely scrutinizes the legal elements of a claim so closely.

Plus, it'd likely be a monster class action filed in an extremely plaintiff-friendly venue (i.e., certain areas of Texas).  The plaintiff's counsel would likely pick the most clear-cut case as the named plaintiff, then the rest of putative class wouldn't be closely scrutinized by the court.  That's not really the way it's supposed to work.  But that's what would keep me up at night if I was potential future defense counsel.

What's political about it?  That the US's response to COVID was abysmal -- compared to virtually every other westernized country?  Does anyone honestly dispute that?  And is it political to say that this failure was from the top down (i.e., including individuals up and down the chain, which, almost certainly, include individuals in both parties)?

That the Prez/VP have commented in support of playing football?  That's just fact.

Honest questions.  I think people are now labelling as "political" anything they don't like and/or wish wasn't true.

Agree with the gist of the post.  Let's give it a few weeks -- or even months.  See how the cards fall.  This is far from clear at this point.

And a Big Ten player is home and gets shot in a drive by or hit by a drunk driver, O.D.'s or chokes on a chicken bone, slips in the shower and dies.

Might want to rethink your list of cited examples.  There's a common theme across nearly all of them that draws on long-standing racial stereotypes.  

I'd bet my life savings that the NCAA, leagues, team, etc. would face far more criticism, backlash, liability, etc. from (1) an unpaid player dying or suffering life-altering illness as a result of playing football (a non-essential game), than (2) someone dying from a random life event that has nothing to do with the NCAA, team, or university, such as choking on a chicken bone.  

The mere fact that risk is present in everyday activity doesn't automatically rationalize every additional risk.  I think base jumping is an overly risky activity that's a bad idea, while at the same time fully understanding that I might get in a car accident.  That's not the hypocritical stance that everyone seems to want it to be to justify a college football season.

You assume Ryan Day and the other coaches are sticking around. Would you?

Hahahahahaha.  Stop, man.  Just stop.  This is such an absurdly over-the-top overreaction...

The ink on the websites is barely dry and everyone is acting like the other conferences for sure will play and the B1G and PAC12 are the only ones who won't be playing.

Remember that 2-3 day period where everyone was CERTAIN the SEC would never play only conference games?  I 'member...

If the SEC, ACC, and B12 go ahead and play and a lot of players get ill or die, the B1G will look very smart.

Yeah man.  Says a lot that this is the first time I've seen a comment along these lines. 

Let's assume one or all of these leagues play (which is faaaaaaaar from certain).  What happens when someone dies and/or suffers permanent issues as a result of COVID?  Or even if 10-20 people on a team get COVID in a short timeframe and get really sick as a result?

All of that seems likely at this point -- again, assuming these leagues even play.  How does that help recruiting for the teams' involved?

I think a lot of "takes" on 11W are going to look idiotic in just a few weeks.  

Nobody is suggesting Osu is “done”. But to win a national title, you have to have a confluence of factors in your favor, stars aligned, and EVERYTHING within your program running at optimal capacity.

Just three comments above, YOU say that this could be an "SMU LEVEL DEATH BLOW" (all caps in original).  LOL.  Those two statements don't seem consistent to me...

Calm down, man.  Walk away from the ledge.

Word is that COVID spread is way down in Hamilton County (i.e., Cincinnati) since the 10:00 p.m. bar rule and increased mask mandates.  So it might actually be pretty effective as a public policy.

Sankey, Bowlsby and Swofford might all know 100% they aren’t going to play this fall, but by saying they are waiting until the last possible second to give up on playing they are protecting their conference’s most important assets, being the current rosters and future recruits.

This is a pretty solid take.  I tend to think everyone will follow suit in the somewhat near future.  But I would've preferred the B1G not be first to announce.  

The B1G deserves death for this decision.

LOL.  This wins the award for most ridiculous comment related to the B1G cancelling its season.  And there have been some doozies.  The irrationality and transparent self interest behind many of these comments is outright embarrassing.  

I get it: it sucks that the B1G won't be playing this fall.  But it isn't because of "politics," aliens, or whatever else people are throwing out there.  It's because we're in the midst of a 100-year pandemic.  And anybody looking at this situation who isn't wearing the thickest of rose-colored glasses would immediately conclude that college football creates a substantial COVID-related risk.

I've seen a few comments blaming this on the B1G being intent on protecting "amateurism."  I agree the growing indefensibility of "amateurism" factored into this decision.  How can you have a bunch of college kids, who are legally prohibited (under a combination of NFL rules, NCAA regs, and various state laws) from seeking any compensation, participate in a high-risk activity for others' entertainment, all to generate billions of dollars?  It's impossible to justify in any way that isn't simply "that's the way it's always been."

That said, I'd be interested in seeing a Venn diagram showing the following groups of people: (1) those who are blaming this on the amateurism angle, and (2) those who are okay with Fields being paid $1M this year to play.  I suspect there's very little overlap.  Candidly, if the athletes were paid, there's a good chance this decision would've turned-out differently.

I wouldn’t bet on that.  The SEC is going to have football come hell or high water.

That's mirrors what everyone was saying when the Pac-12 and B1G got rid of their non-conference games (i.e., "no way in hell the SEC will do that!")  Then they followed suit, like, 2 days later.  

I tend to agree everyone will end up in the same place.  There are going to be a lot of takes that don't age well.

Then again, I'd love if the SEC plays.  I'll be the biggest SEC fan out there for one year only.

Until I see a real data that lines up with what other countries are seeing, then its all just theater.

What?  Not clear what this statement The USA thoroughly botched its preparation for and reaction to this pandemic.  So our data will never look like the data from those countries that took this seriously from the beginning.

[performed between medically monitored athletes who are confirmed negative for covid].

(Confirmed using tests that are 60-70% accurate, and are even less accurate during the 4-5 day incubation period, all involving college students -- who are notoriously unreliable when it comes to limiting irresponsible behavior).

I get it.  It sucks that college football might be cancelled.  But the apparent willingness for people to assume that college football must be safer than no football, with no concrete evidence to support that position -- and a mountain of evidence against it -- just to somehow justify their preferred result, is pretty ridiculous.  

I mean, he's right, though.  

And the claim that college students will be made safer by playing a close-contact sport, with repeated and continuous contact with teammates and staff, is...  conclusory and dubious, at best.  Generally speaking, I suspect football would add another, substantial layer of risk to these students' lives. 

Which isn't to say it's a good idea to have kids in dorms, classrooms, etc.  But the number of people who are performing mental gymnastics to convince themselves that football actually makes everybody safer, all because they don't want to miss out on watching the Buckeyes this fall, is kind of funny.

Yeah, I seriously doubt the accuracy of pretty much all of your post.  Ticketholders = no way in hell.  Players = no way in heck.  Networks = I very, very, very much doubt it, but, candidly, I'm not too familiar with how those agreements works.  I suspect the tone has more to do with promising the network exclusivity (or some portion of the total product), rather than promising that there will, in fact, be a product.

Aren’t we being a little dramatic here?

Hahaha, yes.  Just a little bit.  

Also agree with you about OSU playing in the SEC, BTW.  It isn't going to happen.  But if it was an option, the SEC would signup for that in a heartbeat.  OSU is big, big money.  And very few people dispute that OSU is on par with the top teams in the SEC.  So OSU could win all of its games and it would do very little to damage the SEC's reputation.

Can anyone imagine a 'Bama/OSU SEC Championship Game?  Good Lord...  that would set records.  Bet your ass the SEC would love that.  Plus, maybe they'd get 4 teams into the Playoffs.

No way.  The argument seems to be, just because he won't be No. 1 overall -- and very well might be No. 2 -- he should come back to school.  That's pretty crazy.  

Some kids seem to really like college football, the college experience, etc.  If he wants to stay an extra year and play, hey, that's his prerogative.  But from a dollars-and-cents perspective, no way should he come back.

Like Milhouse, I similarly fail to see your point.  No doubt that different countries -- heck, states -- have had varying degrees of success in responding to COVID-19.  The USA likely had one of the worst responses.  Still, I don't understand what the current state of the disease in Israel and/or the Middle East have to do with whether playing college football in the Big Ten footprint increases the players' risk of catching the disease (relative to not playing).

It's nice to hear that OSU players have voiced confidence in the B1G's current protocols (though the recent "demand" on the B1G seems to suggest not everyone feels safe and secure).  I do think the power imbalance in college football is sufficiently extreme that it's pretty rare for players to step out of line and question their university's policies.  So I'm not sure I put a ton of stock in athletes expressing confidence in protocols for a few reasons.

Everybody's correct that balancing the risk that COVID presents is a personal choice.  I don't live in a bubble.  I have to go to work and am not overly worried about playing softball now and then.  That's about all that I do.

That said, those who seem to think that playing college football doesn't present a much higher risk than, say, going to the store (masked and distanced), working (masked and distanced), etc. are either deluding themselves or ignoring reality.  Known science shows that physical proximity, being indoors, and the increase in water droplets expelled during athletic activity present significant risk factors.  Known science shows that COVID can cause not only deaths, but seemingly permanent effects to, at least, the heart and lungs. 

Just two weeks in, the MLB, while playing a sport that's far more distanced than football, has had multiple outbreaks within teams.  Practical realities would suggest that football will likely be worse.  That's especially true when you take into account the unpredictability of college kids (see, e.g., Rutgers).

That's all to say that I completely get why a college football player would evaluate the COVID-related risk from an educated perspective and conclude that it's just too high to justify playing.  Especially when the player is almost guaranteed to be a top-10 pick.  And all of the "what about-isms" that people are spouting to somehow suggest that it's an unreasonable decision don't really make any sense.

Regardless of your political affiliation, if you can't see that the situation has been HEAVILY politicized, you're out of touch.

This is true.  I do think some people (myself included) just get annoyed that those who are claiming the virus has become politicized tend to be members/proponents of the same political party that politicized it.    

I slightly disagree.  Teams usually have a few kinks to workout in the 1st game of the season.  With the distinct possibility that summer camp looks different this year, that might be the case more this year than ever.  I'd rather OSU and UM be on the top of their respective games when they faceoff.  

They are going to beat the brakes off Purdue.

Quote from me before every game that we lost to Purdue in West Lafayette.

Who says the probabilities of getting the virus are greater in sports?

I think it's highly likely that, between (1) playing a sport that requires in-person attendance and close contact on the field, sidelines, and locker room benches, and (2) not interacting with people in close, indoor quarters, the former carries a much higher risk of catching COVID.  I think that's well settled at this point.  You can get it anywhere, but certain situations present a much higher risk.  If I was virtually guaranteed a 1st-round contract, not sure I'd do any differently.

You could definitely be right.  For the first time, players won't be judged for sitting out a college season.  They might not have been judged previously.  But nobody wanted to test the waters.

That said, I'd certainly understand if someone decided the heightened risk of permanent heart/lung damage, other lasting effects, or death presented by COVID-19, when combined with the preexisting risk of injury, is just too much to take when you're virtually guaranteed to be a 1st-round pick (like Parsons).