"I disagree. And I was a college athlete myself, but I would never suggest that participating at that level has provided me with any sort of special insight. Perhaps if I were involved in the administration of college level athletics, but certainly not just from kicking a football around on the pitch."
I never claimed "special insight," the word I used was "thoughts." I was a D1 athlete in a sport that has a current footprint several fold smaller than when I competed. Largely due to Title IX, yet to some extent impact by liability costs.
Some related perspective:
https://www.booker.senate.gov/news/press/ncaa-revokes-covid-19-liability-waiversfor-college-athletes-in-response-tobooker-and-blumenthal-demand
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/canceling-college-football-coming-down-dollars-sense-n1236541
They are not likely to mention liability in specific for reasons of optics. But it was clearly a factor. Head of Pac 12 CEO group, UofO President Michael Schill: "“If we were going to do this responsibly or if we were going to do it responsibly, we would have to do a level of testing -- both COVID-19 testing and also potentially cardio MRIs -- that we weren’t sure we had the capacity to do,” Schill said. “We don’t know what the testing resources are going to be. We have to do very frequent testing over the course of the season.”"
Of course they could buy all of the necessary equipment and supplies... what would happen if a highly tested athlete contracted the virus and became a super-spreader in the gen pop at Cal? Lawsuit? Wouldn't a gen-pop student paying full tuition consider litigation if he or she did not have access to the same testing and infection preventative regimens as an athlete?