First, it is my respectful opinion that you should never have "zero doubt" about anything. You should always have some fear that you are wrong and be testing your opinions and hypotheses.

As a parent of a D1 athlete who is currently on-campus training for a fall season, I can assure you that adults are heavily involved on the athlete side. As parents, we've analyzed this, we've talked it out as a family and with coaches (who applied zero pressure) and fellow parents of teammates. We understand the protocols, the risks, etc.. While I won't say I have zero doubt that we've thought about this more than you have since I don't know you, I can tell you that an adult decision is being made carefully on my kid's participation. If you want to get into the nuts and bolts about why, let's go offline and we can talk all day about the many deceiving definitions of "cases", death rate trends, causation and correlation, the vectors that spur on a snowballing effect, school protocols, etc...we've looked at all the data and opinions ad-nauseam. To indicate that these kids are making their own decisions is a faulty assumption.

In my view, these institutional decisions have very little to do with the athlete interest or the current state of the health situation. They are mostly about the liability/threat of litigation exposure and institutional reputation in the face of an intensely political environment. Those factors don't always align with the athlete's best interests and that is why you see them speaking out.

What you mean by deceiving definitions of cases, death rate trends, etc.

The flip side to your point about schools being afraid of liability is that I think for many, pressing forward is about money, plain and simple. Schools need that athletic income and if it goes away, even for a year, they have a problem.

EDIT: Does your stance change if more information comes out about team doctors finding cases of myocarditis in athletes who have tested positive for COVID-19?

Deception is a loaded word that implies intent. That is not where I was going. Data is very context/assumption dependent which is a problem in the drive-by, "simplify it" world we live by. As state/county data collection has become more sophisticated, most notably in May/June, the definitions changed making trend data irrelevant to previous periods. These definitions are also not consistent from state to state so comparisons are meaningless. Unless you dig down (which doesn't fit our headline, drive-by society) a level or two to understand this, case data is hard to use for any conclusions. Death data is much more consistent and usually lags cases by a week or so (if correctly attributed to date). If these are going in different directions, there is always something with the case tracking/definitions that you don't understand. When someone gives you case data, you need to know the assumptions or you need the death data for context to help you begin to figure out what is going on. I now disregard case data when I hear it communicated at a summary level. Again, no intent, it is hard to communicate context and assumptions quickly and in a simple form.

On your second question about heart issues, this is my biggest fear with this disease and I watch it closely (never "no doubt") for all my kids but I also believe that the protocols, the testing lab on campus, the involvement and escalation path of medical experts that have been set up all make the campus athletic environment safer than the alternative. Also, by living in the raw data, I can personally stay grounded and away from the media hype that is driving so much fear. I do think the media has a ratings incentive to amplify fear. Obviously advancements in our medical knowledge are important to add to the mix but with data not anecdotal stories on the Today show.

Our family conclusions are highly specific to our situation, our personal risk/reward tolerance, and our faith in/knowledge of the environment to control and contain this. My original point was that to assume that kids are making this decision like 18-22 year olds in a vacuum without analysis and parental involvement is incorrect. Also, each family faces a different scenario, and each decision about playing/not playing should be respected and not judged by drive-by opinions. Many if not most of us take this extremely seriously not just regarding our kid's health but also how our actions impact society.

"I also believe that the protocols, the testing lab on campus, the involvement and escalation path of medical experts that have been set up all make the campus athletic environment safer than the alternative."

These kids are safer under college protocols than left to their own devices. They are not socially distancing in their private lives, and will not be.

I think postponing college football is a very legit decision but proceeding could also work. I'm only arguing that the players and their families are not all coming from a place driven by immature decision-making.

consideration. I don’t like the spin that is happening — that athletes are being forced to play or athletes are automatons with no reason.

They want to play. Their parents want them to play. They can opt out, and ND has stated that opt-outs will keep their scholarships. I think Conferences should adopt that rule across the board.

These guys are elite athletes. Football is what they do. Playing on national TV is their dream. Let them play.