Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I think the people waiting for a player to die so they can blame someone for it is gross.

I believe, I believe, I am a natural born believer . . . I believe.
I took that from an old folk song. All kidding aside, OrangeAfro's calculations, or similar ones, are the calculations leading to the deferment of the football season by the Ivy League, most of D-III, the Pac-12, and Big Ten, and most of FCS. 
Notre Dame has already gone from in-person learning to remote learning. That didn't take long. But the football team hasn't done so. I happen to believe that there is such close contact in football not only on plays but when 100 players come together to hoot and holler the mascot's name, that his calculations are close to being correct. That said, if the season is deferred to January, but a vaccine doesn't come out until March, what is the point of deferring only until January?
A part of me thinks it will be interesting to watch the Hawkeyes play the Buckeyes in the UNI-Dome this January (on television), but that's probably not going to happen because there will be no vaccine, yet.

Panic reactions are nonsensical with this, I agree.  It's always been simple math. 

You want college football to happen like there was no pandemic, we don't have to fret or fuss, just play with the numbers.
70 scholarship players x 130 FBS teams = 9,100 players + other players, coaches, medical staff, etc.  Plus FCS, Division II, Division III, NAIA, etc.

Let's stick to the smallest number - 9,100.  If there's a 0.05% death rate, that's 46 players.  Dead.  Not 5%, one-half of a percent.  Let's say these are young, stud athletes and it's "only" one-tenth of a percent that die...that's 9 dead players.

Is that worth it?  We get our memories and stats and glory and 9 of the players die.  Fair trade? 

.05 is too high.  It may be on target for that age group with comorbidities (which is something to look at, for this group sickle cell, not sure if asthma is considered a comorbidity or not).  But without them we are looking at something a lot lower, between .0003 and .00004.  So few young people from that group have died as to make it difficult to calculate.  

It seems clear that young people have much less risk of dying of COVID-19 than their elders do.

But the problem is that those young people are not just around their fellow yoots.  They are around their parents, maybe their grandparents, and their college professors who, in some cases, are old enough to be their grandparents.

So the young people who feel nearly invulnerable are nevertheless potential spreaders to people who have much higher probabilities of dying from the virus.  They may disregard the risk to themselves.  But they don't have the right to disregard the risk they can pose to others.

I mean, yes, true, though it does bring up an ethical conundrum - how much right does one group of people (those with a high risk of dying) to restrict another group (those with very low to zero risk).  You can make a pretty good argument that young people are bearing the most of the weight of the restriction while seeing the least benefit.

It seems clear that young people have much less risk of dying of COVID-19 than their elders do.

But the problem is that those young people are not just around their fellow yoots.  They are around their parents, maybe their grandparents, and their college professors who, in some cases, are old enough to be their grandparents.

So the young people who feel nearly invulnerable are nevertheless potential spreaders to people who have much higher probabilities of dying from the virus.  They may disregard the risk to themselves.  But they don't have the right to disregard the risk they can pose to others.

Meanwhile the HS athletes, the ones that actually DO live with their parents, they can play. 

Yeah, I'd be watching no doubt.  I just don't want to be disappointed if they start it up and cancel it after 1-2-3 games.

We'll see, and hope for the best.

I’d argue that the general student population is more likely to get players sick, than the other way around. Rarely will asymptomatic students know they have COVID-19, but these players are regularly tested and would be quickly alerted and quarantined. It’s hypocritical that the regular community is still free to frequent restaurants, shopping malls, grocery stores, gyms, and group get-togethers, but believe they somehow have the right to weigh in on what is a proper risk for my son’s team. That’s really unfair.

This is the one bit that I completely disagree with. 

The regular community has no real voice on it. In fact, many of them probably still want the team to play, because they've been jonesin' for sports just like everyone else.

The people who matter are the ones who voted--the university Presidents likely at the behest of their Boards of Directors. 

"The regular community" point brought up here is just a red herring.