[teejers1]

Means nothing to me this year. Money triumphs over common sense. I sincerely hope that parents of kids denied the experience of returning to campus will sue because a few “student athletes” are there making money for the autocrats. And the players themselves. A few will be insured to be drafted but most will risk their skulls without compensation.
Scholies are not enough.

If you're a kid who plays a minor sport, then you might appreciate that the football program is generating revenue to help keep your collegiate sports experience alive.  If you work in the AD of any of these schools, you might appreciate that the football program is generating revenue that might keep you employed.  Etcetera.

And you don't know that kids are being kept out of college so that football can be played more safely - see ND and many other schools - though  I certainly agree that it is safer for those on campus (athletes, staff, food service, etc.) if the student body at large is not around.  And you have to concede the risk of spread is greater with college kids back as opposed to football team back.  Indeed, that is the headline grabber: "Colleges open, Case Counts Soar" (rarely do you see articles about universities getting the virus under control . . . why that is presents a separate issue).

And I have the exact opposite reaction as you:  I hope the schools like ND who are trying to make it work for team and student body succeed.  I feel this way even though I know that my alma mater has chosen not to go down that road.

As for interest in college football, mine is determined by one school:  Stanford.  Accordingly, interest has been waning for a while now - and this year is the bottom (for now).  But I believe OF's sentiments are pretty widely held, even by "college football fan," certainly until (and if) the Big Boys start playing each other.

[teejers1]

Means nothing to me this year. Money triumphs over common sense. I sincerely hope that parents of kids denied the experience of returning to campus will sue because a few “student athletes” are there making money for the autocrats. And the players themselves. A few will be insured to be drafted but most will risk their skulls without compensation.
Scholies are not enough.

If you're a kid who plays a minor sport, then you might appreciate that the football program is generating revenue to help keep your collegiate sports experience alive.  If you work in the AD of any of these schools, you might appreciate that the football program is generating revenue that might keep you employed.  Etcetera.

And you don't know that kids are being kept out of college so that football can be played more safely - see ND and many other schools - though  I certainly agree that it is safer for those on campus (athletes, staff, food service, etc.) if the student body at large is not around.  And you have to concede the risk of spread is greater with college kids back as opposed to football team back.  Indeed, that is the headline grabber: "Colleges open, Case Counts Soar" (rarely do you see articles about universities getting the virus under control . . . why that is presents a separate issue).

And I have the exact opposite reaction as you:  I hope the schools like ND who are trying to make it work for team and student body succeed.  I feel this way even though I know that my alma mater has chosen not to go down that road.

As for interest in college football, mine is determined by one school:  Stanford.  Accordingly, interest has been waning for a while now - and this year is the bottom (for now).  But I believe OF's sentiments are pretty widely held, even by "college football fan," certainly until (and if) the Big Boys start playing each other.