What Do We Think About How the New England-Kansas City Game Was Handled?



Okay, folks. What are our thoughts on New England Patriots DT Bill Murray (nice name, champ) testing positive yesterday, followed by Stephen Gilmore testing positive this morning, in terms of the NE @ KC game having only been delayed a day?


I know the point was to ensure everyone tested clean. And I know the conversation about “getting back to normal” repeatedly ignores how flattening the curve wasn’t supposed to be forever.


But I also know that it’s damn near impossible to play football without passing this disease around. I get the issue with carelessness and lack of uniformity in the League’s solutions, but positives are literally unavoidable, so I’m not sure what to say.


Doesn’t everyone being clean going into the game only to have multiple positive results come out immediately afterward show that this approach isn’t great? Granted, it’s always easy for bystanders to bitch about medical procedures.


How come the NFL didn’t do bubble city stuff?


It seems damn near logistically impossible, but why? Is it simply too hard and expensive?


When I chat with people about the financials behind pro sports, I always like to include that players pay far more of their own way than most people realize. That’s room and board, and much else. I imagine that plays somewhat into things here.


Again, just spitballing, because much of the outrage I’ve seen is empty social media commentary offering no substance.


At this rate, you’re just letting athletes build immunity, right?

The conversation is obviously warming up – re-warming up rather – in search of what the ultimate solution should be. When this conversation is applied to larger populations, the US, for example, there’s always going to be a more at-risk minority while the rest build immunity.


So what happens? More people opting out? A canceled season? It’s been four weeks, and we’ve had two games postponed/rescheduled within the last one.

8 views