Since you refuse to inform yourself and read the article listed on the front page of Huskermax, I'll post the relevant quotes:
For instance, potential cardiac issues related to COVID-19 have been discussed for months as a major unknown. As far back as May, sports cardiologist Jonathan H. Kim of Emory University co-authored an opinion piece that suggested athletes who become infected should not exercise for two weeks after their symptoms resolve and should undergo extensive cardiac testing to look for underlying heart inflammation.
But as the scheduled games get closer, the issue is suddenly getting a second look. According to one person with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the situation, a group of Pac 12 presidents has become significantly concerned about the data they’ve been given as players have undergone necessary cardiac tests.
A
Sports Illustrated piece on Sunday anonymously quoted a team doctor who was aware of 10 COVID-related heart issues on college football teams, and a recent paper published in
JAMA Cardiology found that 78 of 100 patients they studied had cardiac abnormalities more than two months after being diagnosed with COVID-19.
This brings up two very important questions, particularly at schools that have had large numbers of players test positive for the coronavirus. First, has everyone’s testing on the cardiac part been adequate enough? Second, what is the risk of a player who recovered from COVID-19 dying on the practice field or in the middle of a game due to a related heart issue?
“The studies have a lot of people thinking,” said one athletics director. “Not everybody does baseline heart testing the same way and that’s a concern trying to understand more about the research. Does it heighten or expose someone with a preexisting condition or did this happen because of COVID? We’re dealing with something there aren’t known answers for yet, and we don’t have the benefit of time to see how it all works out. That’s what has everyone additionally concerned.”
In retrospect, as you talk to administrators, many now wistfully admit that college football was doomed as soon as COVID-19 and the notion of public health became politicized. And they know that, too, will rear its ugly head if the season is canceled — not just from some fans and donors who will baselessly accuse schools of kowtowing to liberal academics but perhaps even from President Trump, who has specifically talked about college football coming back as an aspirational normality.
So what now?
As much as the power conferences have wanted to act in concert, there is still no agreement about the path ahead. The Big Ten and Pac 12 are likely joined at the hip, and both leagues have factions that are ready to pack it in, though it’s unclear whether they’ll reach a consensus on that in the next few days. But once a couple leagues make that call, it’s hard to imagine the momentum not sweeping up the rest.
Slowly but surely, college sports is coming to grips with both the ramifications of these decisions and the necessity in making them. In the end, the people in charge are beginning to realize the biggest factor in whether college football can be played was out of their hands all along.
“The virus is not athletics’ problem,” said one athletics director. “It is society’s. But athletics couldn’t safely adapt.”
And until that happens, the ultimate test for college sports remains simple. Unless the people in charge would stake their careers on it being safe enough to play, the other factors don’t really matter.