SCPrepTalk

WE GOING TO HAVE A 5 GAME CONFERENCE SCHEDULE STARTING IN MID-SEPT, NO LONG AWAY GAMES, SO WE LOST SUMTER, RIVER BLUFF, SUMMERVILLE, FORT, ASHLEY RIDGE
GAMES. SAD DAYS

GAMES TO PLAY
STALL
GOOSE CREEK
AT WANDOE
SADFORD
AT CANE BAY

The SCHSL IS WORTHLESS.

CITYSLICKER wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 25, 2020 11:16 am

WE GOING TO HAVE A 5 GAME CONFERENCE SCHEDULE STARTING IN MID-SEPT, NO LONG AWAY GAMES, SO WE LOST SUMTER, RIVER BLUFF, SUMMERVILLE, FORT, ASHLEY RIDGE
GAMES. SAD DAYS

Still got time to adjust that.
I do not see yLl giving up two money games.

Fortfor5 wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:14 pm

CITYSLICKER wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 25, 2020 11:16 am

WE GOING TO HAVE A 5 GAME CONFERENCE SCHEDULE STARTING IN MID-SEPT, NO LONG AWAY GAMES, SO WE LOST SUMTER, RIVER BLUFF, SUMMERVILLE, FORT, ASHLEY RIDGE
GAMES. SAD DAYS

Still got time to adjust that.
I do not see yLl giving up two money games.

Money games don't really matter if no or very little fans are allowed in games. I think thats the issue, without fans, some coaches would rather not play non-region games. I have actually heard a different scenario. Region schedule only, but spaced out every couple of weeks, to protect against a situation where a player(s) is COVID positive and they have to stop practice for a few days to fully disinfect facilities. Also, with school districts all over the state operating on different schedules, this gives each team a "fair shake" to get at least 5 practices in between games.

a question that i have been trying to get an answer to.............if we only have online school, no classroom instruction, do you think we will still have football ???............

FootballFan4343 wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:28 pm

Fortfor5 wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:14 pm

CITYSLICKER wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 25, 2020 11:16 am

WE GOING TO HAVE A 5 GAME CONFERENCE SCHEDULE STARTING IN MID-SEPT, NO LONG AWAY GAMES, SO WE LOST SUMTER, RIVER BLUFF, SUMMERVILLE, FORT, ASHLEY RIDGE
GAMES. SAD DAYS

Still got time to adjust that.
I do not see yLl giving up two money games.

Money games don't really matter if no or very little fans are allowed in games. I think thats the issue, without fans, some coaches would rather not play non-region games. I have actually heard a different scenario. Region schedule only, but spaced out every couple of weeks, to protect against a situation where a player(s) is COVID positive and they have to stop practice for a few days to fully disinfect facilities. Also, with school districts all over the state operating on different schedules, this gives each team a "fair shake" to get at least 5 practices in between games.

Even with reduced fans a check is a check though.
We have a small region 4 games we almost have ti have a extra game or two.

spectator wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:47 pm

a question that i have been trying to get an answer to.............if we only have online school, no classroom instruction, do you think we will still have football ???............

There is not an answer to this because who knows what local districts will do. One thing is clear, the SCHSL and the Governor are going to leave everything up to local municipalities.
But, the best way to analyze your question is the "legal ramifications". Thats what a lot of this is, everyone is deflecting to someone else to avoid a potential lawsuit if someone were to have complications from COVID-19. The beauty of sports is they are "opt-in", so you lose a lot of your legal power when you opt-in to something. School, normally, is not "opt-in", however by allowing virtual school, that helps to justify that attending school in person is now "opt-in".
So, to answer your question, as best as possible, football is actually less dangerous (from a legal perspective) than attending in-person school. It would be very difficult, barring a clear violation of the COVID-19 guidelines set by the SCHSL, for someone to win a lawsuit over someone getting sick playing sports. Basically they would have to use an argument similar to those that get an injury, where they claim the coaches didn't teach the athlete properly.

Clear shields for all players should help

Onion Rings wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:23 pm

Clear shields for all players should help

That would be a great idea, but currently SCHSL prohibits them. Look, at the end of the day, we can keep the athletes and coaches safer than they have ever been. Wear face shields for players, coaches were masks at all times. All players wear gloves, etc, etc. It just comes down to, how bad do they want to do it. The virus isnt going anywhere. Even if we "lockdown" again, it just pops back up as soon as we open back up. So any further lockdowns are pointless. We either find a way to move forward, of we go hide. Thats the options for all of us, in everything we do. Sure, we can wear masks/social distance/etc, but all that does is delay/delay. True elimination is only achieved through a working vaccine that everyone takes, or herd immunity. Thats it.
One interesting thing to note, with the amount of younger people testing positive, it is driving the death rate lower and lower. If cases continue to grow but deaths dont grow by the same amounts, at what point do we say, well, this wasn't as bad as we thought? Right now, its at 2.3% death rate of confirmed cases. Just one week ago, that number was 3.5%. If we use DHEC's projected numbers of cases, then the rate drops to .7%. At what point does that happen? Not trying to start an argument, but what does it need to get to so we say, well this wasn't as deadly as we first thought. Is that what it takes to move forward?