Since this is a very unusual situation this year, I think that until a vaccine is available, fans, especially those in the high risk group, should have the option to stay at home this football season and get a refund on their tickets. As a 30 year season ticket holder, it will be hard for me not attend games this year but in reality I can't help but think the risk is just too great. I certainly agree though that those who aren't worried should have the opportunity to attend the games.
WSJ report on corona safety in stadiums featuring Kyle Field
8,596 Views |
106 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by cone
culdeus said:CT75 said:What if the high risk people understand the risks and want to go vs. hide under their beds? Why does that make them selfish...why is the government trying to protect them if they understand the risks and want to go?culdeus said:beerad12man said:
But what's the end game? What does it mean to say going to a football game isn't about us? We all the have the choice to go or not. If you fear a massive outbreak as a result of these games overwhelming the hospitals, I still say that's extremely unlikely, particularly of the game is filled with 95% lower risk people and the elderly/people with co-morbidities mostly stay home.
A big part of me thinks we are trying to hard to suppress this thing when in reality, we need to let it cycle through the less risk people ASAP so that us, the elderly, and co-morbidity population/high risk people can all move on as quickly as possible. If you get the healthier people sick, then the virus loses steam and you let the higher risk come back out of hiding even sooner. Instead of sequester us all and continue to drag this out.
I'll change my tune if a vaccine becomes a legit possibility in the next few months. Otherwise we are just delaying this thing and not really reducing the total amount of deaths
There is no method/enforcement to make high risk people stay home, that's the issue. Because we have selfish high risk people, nobody gets to go.
Having been to quite a few TAMU games lately, the entire 2nd deck is just jammed full of high risk people that paid a crap ton for those seats and PSL. No way we can get them to stay home while the millenials go in their place, none.
Are you saying they have a high-risk of dying from the virus? If they want to go and understand the risks...let them go.
I don't feel high risk people understand the risks. I'm not for nanny state here, ever. But we need cooler heads to win here. And there's just no reason for fans to be in person at Kyle this fall.
We can't risk elementary schools not re opening and a gigantic case surge right at elem opening would be the second economy wave that finally takes us all down.
To the bolded part...most of the reason the high risk population doesn't understand the risk is because no one a the local, state, or federal level is even talking about it as a way to mitigate this virus. Those statistics should be hammered at every single press conference and at least every three days by the MSM, but they aren't. We are sticking with a one size fits all messaging. People generally have their self interest in mind most of the time. You start supplying statistics based on high risk populations, and I'd guarantee a large portion of that population would reduce their own risk.
You don't know that, at all. Quit presenting your opinions as if they are facts.cone said:
schools will not be open five days a week for students, at least not HISD
it'll be A/B schedule at the most
Bingo Bango Bongo said:PJYoung said:Bingo Bango Bongo said:
Open it up. People decide the risk they want to accept. Olds would be advised to stay away
This would 100% work if people that attended didnt unknowingly spread it after catching it at the game.
Going to happen anyway. By fall enough of the public will have had it that it should prevent some crazy hot spots. Treatments will also have improved further by fall
culdeus said:
I'm 100% open up most everything with the exception of confined spaces where people are standing still. If you think that is safe, then you aren't following this closely.
Stadium style seating, even outside is really shaky. That's really where the whole italy thing got started. A single minor league type soccer game.
Minor league? It was a uefa champions league match lol
whoop whoop texags tone police whoop whoop
GAC06 said:
I would go to a stadium or concert now if I could, as the virus poses about as much threat to me as driving there from my house.
Statistically.... driving there poses much more of a threat
PJYoung said:GAC06 said:
I would go to a stadium or concert now if I could, as the virus poses about as much threat to me as driving there from my house.
Except this isn't about you. (and I know that simple fact is so very hard to understand in 2020)
For the record I think everything should be opened up at the moment EXCEPT for things where you have large gatherings in enclosed spaces. That should probably still wait a few weeks.
Nope, if you're 75 with diabetes or heart problem then yeah.. probably stay home.
Everyone else... this virus is about as much as a risk to you as getting attacked by a shark in a swimming pool
Sadly, people gladly jump in their cars and drive to the store while texting despite the very real threat of an accident fatal even to young healthy people. Many of those same people are petrified about a virus with a better than 99.99% chance of recovery for all but the elderly.
Beat40 said:culdeus said:CT75 said:What if the high risk people understand the risks and want to go vs. hide under their beds? Why does that make them selfish...why is the government trying to protect them if they understand the risks and want to go?culdeus said:beerad12man said:
But what's the end game? What does it mean to say going to a football game isn't about us? We all the have the choice to go or not. If you fear a massive outbreak as a result of these games overwhelming the hospitals, I still say that's extremely unlikely, particularly of the game is filled with 95% lower risk people and the elderly/people with co-morbidities mostly stay home.
A big part of me thinks we are trying to hard to suppress this thing when in reality, we need to let it cycle through the less risk people ASAP so that us, the elderly, and co-morbidity population/high risk people can all move on as quickly as possible. If you get the healthier people sick, then the virus loses steam and you let the higher risk come back out of hiding even sooner. Instead of sequester us all and continue to drag this out.
I'll change my tune if a vaccine becomes a legit possibility in the next few months. Otherwise we are just delaying this thing and not really reducing the total amount of deaths
There is no method/enforcement to make high risk people stay home, that's the issue. Because we have selfish high risk people, nobody gets to go.
Having been to quite a few TAMU games lately, the entire 2nd deck is just jammed full of high risk people that paid a crap ton for those seats and PSL. No way we can get them to stay home while the millenials go in their place, none.
Are you saying they have a high-risk of dying from the virus? If they want to go and understand the risks...let them go.
I don't feel high risk people understand the risks. I'm not for nanny state here, ever. But we need cooler heads to win here. And there's just no reason for fans to be in person at Kyle this fall.
We can't risk elementary schools not re opening and a gigantic case surge right at elem opening would be the second economy wave that finally takes us all down.
To the bolded part...most of the reason the high risk population doesn't understand the risk is because no one a the local, state, or federal level is even talking about it as a way to mitigate this virus. Those statistics should be hammered at every single press conference and at least every three days by the MSM, but they aren't. We are sticking with a one size fits all messaging. People generally have their self interest in mind most of the time. You start supplying statistics based on high risk populations, and I'd guarantee a large portion of that population would reduce their own risk.
I've been saying this all along. Politicians don't want to offend voters. No other explanation.
Reality is that if you do not have 100 percent of typical ticket sales for football, a lot of athletic departments are not financially viable. There will be football in the fall bc there has to be. It's a pipe dream to think 25 percent capacity is realistic in any way shape or form. You do that, and you will have 10 teams playing football in 2021. That is reality
TAMU ‘98 Ole Miss ‘21
Aggie said:GAC06 said:
I would go to a stadium or concert now if I could, as the virus poses about as much threat to me as driving there from my house.
Statistically.... driving there poses much more of a threat
In April Covid-19 was the 3rd leading cause of death in the US behind cancer and heart disease.
Bocephus said:
Reality is that if you do not have 100 percent of typical ticket sales for football, a lot of athletic departments are not financially viable. There will be football in the fall bc there has to be. It's a pipe dream to think 25 percent capacity is realistic in any way shape or form. You do that, and you will have 10 teams playing football in 2021. That is reality
I feel like it would hurt 3rd tier sports the most tbh.
culdeus said:Bocephus said:
Reality is that if you do not have 100 percent of typical ticket sales for football, a lot of athletic departments are not financially viable. There will be football in the fall bc there has to be. It's a pipe dream to think 25 percent capacity is realistic in any way shape or form. You do that, and you will have 10 teams playing football in 2021. That is reality
I feel like it would hurt 3rd tier sports the most tbh.
You have two sports that make money for athletic departments in football and men's basketball. How exactly are athletic departments going to make up a loss of $50-150 million in revenue when the MAJORITY of them lose money every year to begin with?
TAMU ‘98 Ole Miss ‘21
Yep, all 3 killing primarily old people.PJYoung said:Aggie said:GAC06 said:
I would go to a stadium or concert now if I could, as the virus poses about as much threat to me as driving there from my house.
Statistically.... driving there poses much more of a threat
In April Covid-19 was the 3rd leading cause of death in the US behind cancer and heart disease.
Bocephus said:
Reality is that if you do not have 100 percent of typical ticket sales for football, a lot of athletic departments are not financially viable. There will be football in the fall bc there has to be. It's a pipe dream to think 25 percent capacity is realistic in any way shape or form. You do that, and you will have 10 teams playing football in 2021. That is reality
I like how this is "reality" in a thread where our own athletic director is in a video interview stating that they are preparing for other possibilities.
And even ignoring that, your numbers aren't realistic in the slightest. As long as the TV deals are in place, 75% of the major conference schools will still be able to field a football team next year. This idea that one season at even reduced capacity will suddenly leave us with 10 athletic programs standing in 2021 is about as chicken little as you can get.
All of that being said, the talk of some athletic directors that as the amount of time left to make the decision continues to dwindle that we might have to plan for reduced capacity leads even more likelihood to delaying the decision entirely to make it more likely for 100% fan attendance and either starting the season late with conference-only or starting in January. It will make things logistically really tough for athletic departments for a season, but the reward would potentially be worth it.
Pushing back the start of the season is a terrible idea. Go read the Andy Staples article on Premium. That's not going to happen.
It may be that we play without fans, but I think that is a decision that can be made much closer to the first game. Playing without fans would lead the athletic department to run a deficit in the tens of millions, but as a one year deal, it could be managed.
All the science says that spread is usually indoors in enclosed spaces, so football at least has that working for it. I can't understand why the same level of social distancing would be required for an outdoor football game as in a supermarket. It's a long way until September, and every indication is that we're going to play as scheduled (with the presence of fans to be determined at a later date), unless an opponent is unavailable.
It may be that we play without fans, but I think that is a decision that can be made much closer to the first game. Playing without fans would lead the athletic department to run a deficit in the tens of millions, but as a one year deal, it could be managed.
All the science says that spread is usually indoors in enclosed spaces, so football at least has that working for it. I can't understand why the same level of social distancing would be required for an outdoor football game as in a supermarket. It's a long way until September, and every indication is that we're going to play as scheduled (with the presence of fans to be determined at a later date), unless an opponent is unavailable.
Yeah, pushing back the start pushes the late season into winter respiratory virus territory. The lowest risk time will be early season
I've read both threads about this here and on Billy's board and people are still missing the broader picture on why these discussions and planning sessions are taking place. First off, let me say we are lucky to have great leaders in our athletic department and university who are already working and thinking about these complex issues and preparing for them, EVEN IF WE MIGHT NOT NEED THEM. You have to plan for all scenarios and it seems like that is encouraging and we should be proud our staff is leading the way on that.
But this is not about you or what type of risk you are willing to take on to watch a football game. People keep coming with that very selfish point of view. Here is the kicker: everything will be done to keep the university open and in operation for the entire fall. Everything else is secondary. You cannot have a situation where you shut down the university in the middle of a second consecutive semester. It's game over then. So ALL decisions that will be made will have that as the first priority.
That includes whether big events with large population gatherings are manageable and in the best interest of the university. If a spreading event were to occur as a result of a football game and bringing in a large outside population (not just game attendees), how would that impact campus operations? B/CS at large? Would a local outbreak lead to suspension or altering of campus operations and how does that impact the semester and the student population at large? These are the type of questions that need to be asked and discussed, not yelling about who is and isn't "scared" to go to a football game. Right now there is probably not a right/wrong answer but its in the back of every administrators head and will be how they ultimately make decisions and everyone needs to understand that. Almost everything will be done conservatively and rightfully so as this is uncharted territory. There is no need to get mad about it right now but have some understanding that we all are trying to proceed with the best interests for everyone in mind.
I know the reply will be about statistics for risks to young people, etc, so let me go ahead and reply right now -- you're living in a fantasy world if you don't think a local outbreak on the College Station campus, or any campus really, would impact operations. If you get reports that a local outbreak has sparked, any time during the campus semester, there will have to be actions taken to ensure not only the health of students but all employees of all ages that work at the university. Disruptions to the main mission of the university will have to be kept to a minimum to restore confidence among students and staff going forward.
But this is not about you or what type of risk you are willing to take on to watch a football game. People keep coming with that very selfish point of view. Here is the kicker: everything will be done to keep the university open and in operation for the entire fall. Everything else is secondary. You cannot have a situation where you shut down the university in the middle of a second consecutive semester. It's game over then. So ALL decisions that will be made will have that as the first priority.
That includes whether big events with large population gatherings are manageable and in the best interest of the university. If a spreading event were to occur as a result of a football game and bringing in a large outside population (not just game attendees), how would that impact campus operations? B/CS at large? Would a local outbreak lead to suspension or altering of campus operations and how does that impact the semester and the student population at large? These are the type of questions that need to be asked and discussed, not yelling about who is and isn't "scared" to go to a football game. Right now there is probably not a right/wrong answer but its in the back of every administrators head and will be how they ultimately make decisions and everyone needs to understand that. Almost everything will be done conservatively and rightfully so as this is uncharted territory. There is no need to get mad about it right now but have some understanding that we all are trying to proceed with the best interests for everyone in mind.
I know the reply will be about statistics for risks to young people, etc, so let me go ahead and reply right now -- you're living in a fantasy world if you don't think a local outbreak on the College Station campus, or any campus really, would impact operations. If you get reports that a local outbreak has sparked, any time during the campus semester, there will have to be actions taken to ensure not only the health of students but all employees of all ages that work at the university. Disruptions to the main mission of the university will have to be kept to a minimum to restore confidence among students and staff going forward.
Are you a season ticket holder? Are you willing to give up your seats? We have a loge box which is almost completely socially distanced from others by design. The suites are socially distanced. By mid-Sept most students will have already been exposed and likely immune. How does anyone redesign seating to make it equitable? Telling 50% of season ticket holders that they cant attend the LSU game when A&M may be playing for its first 10-win season in forever, is a non-starter. Attendance seems like an all or none deal.Quote:
the amount of time left to make the decision continues to dwindle that we might have to plan for reduced capacity
Bingo Bango Bongo said:
Yeah, pushing back the start pushes the late season into winter respiratory virus territory. The lowest risk time will be early season
We're not worried about winter respiratory virus territory. Hell we're not even really worried about covid virus territory. Right now it's about the deadline to make the decision creeping up and if we can get most teams committed by that deadline -- that's why delaying the season is on the table.
tysker said:Are you a season ticket holder? Are you willing to give up your seats? We have a loge box which is almost completely socially distanced from others by design. The suites are socially distanced. By mid-Sept most students will have already been exposed and likely immune. How does anyone redesign seating to make it equitable? Telling 50% of season ticket holders that they cant attend the LSU game when A&M may be playing for its first 10-win season in forever, is a non-starter. Attendance seems like an all or none deal.Quote:
the amount of time left to make the decision continues to dwindle that we might have to plan for reduced capacity
If you are approaching this from the viewpoint that it's "all or none" then you aren't approaching this from a logical viewpoint.
Obviously reduced attendance is not something anyone wants. Obviously reduced attendance is a logistical headache.
But this idea that these athletic departments are going to say "we aren't willing to accept 30-50% of the gate, we'll just deal with 0% gate" isn't logical. It's in no way "all or nothing" and our athletic director literally says as much in the linked video.
As for how you handle season ticket holders in that situation - you refund/credit them and sell the reduced capacity games as single games.
While an open air stadium in the heat and humidity of Texas certainly has advantages to reduce transmission, we also have to remember the high likelihood of aerosol transmission of the virus, and what is one thing we are known for -- yelling.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm
Another thing to consider.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm
Another thing to consider.
We need time for a study to understand the viral load associated with humping it vs not humping it
Then open the school ASAP with limited numbers. Summer school classes need to ramp up. Allow student and staff to interact slowly over the summer and maybe open early dorms up a week or two early. Getting all the students back together, all at the same time, seems antithetical to slowing the spread.Quote:
But this is not about you or what type of risk you are willing to take on to watch a football game. People keep coming with that very selfish point of view. Here is the kicker: everything will be done to keep the university open and in operation for the entire fall. Everything else is secondary. You cannot have a situation where you shut down the university in the middle of a second consecutive semester. It's game over then. So ALL decisions that will be made will have that as the first priority.
Having 65000 students in residence is going to create a lot greater risk of an outbreak in BCS than having football games with fans would. The students come from all over and live in close quarters. There almost certainly will be spread among the student and staff population, with or without football. The greater risk from the football game is that you get fans who travel in for the game, and spread it to fans who travel to other locations, so you take what might have been a localized outbreak and spread it to multiple locations.
What the decision makers are starting to come to grips with is that we cannot eliminate risk, and instead, have to find a tolerable level of risk given the need for life (and business) to carry on. Although there will be restrictions continuing for some time, we will do things this Fall that seem unthinkable to some people right now.
What the decision makers are starting to come to grips with is that we cannot eliminate risk, and instead, have to find a tolerable level of risk given the need for life (and business) to carry on. Although there will be restrictions continuing for some time, we will do things this Fall that seem unthinkable to some people right now.
This is spot on.
I'm trying to approach from a pragmatic and equitable vantage point. Are selling your ticket back? How are ADs going to "force" reduction of reserved seating? If you were around for the Kyle Field reseating lawsuits for endowed donors, you know people will fight for what they think they are due.Proposition Joe said:tysker said:Are you a season ticket holder? Are you willing to give up your seats? We have a loge box which is almost completely socially distanced from others by design. The suites are socially distanced. By mid-Sept most students will have already been exposed and likely immune. How does anyone redesign seating to make it equitable? Telling 50% of season ticket holders that they cant attend the LSU game when A&M may be playing for its first 10-win season in forever, is a non-starter. Attendance seems like an all or none deal.Quote:
the amount of time left to make the decision continues to dwindle that we might have to plan for reduced capacity
If you are approaching this from the viewpoint that it's "all or none" then you aren't approaching this from a logical viewpoint.
Obviously reduced attendance is not something anyone wants. Obviously reduced attendance is a logistical headache.
But this idea that these athletic departments are going to say "we aren't willing to accept 30-50% of the gate, we'll just deal with 0% gate" isn't logical. It's in no way "all or nothing" and our athletic director literally says as much in the linked video.
As for how you handle season ticket holders in that situation - you refund/credit them and sell the reduced capacity games as single games.
Expand Kyle Field 150,000 more seats and we can get this to work
I do think it would be difficult to do social distancing with season ticket holders. Even if you just went down the list by priority points, you'd end up with people in club seating stuck in the bleachers somewhere, and then wanting a refund given the difference in level of seating. For that reason, if we do have to have social distancing in the Fall (and that is not a certainty), then for A&M, it seems to me the thing to do is just have students in attendance. You can spread them out, and they draw tickets the week of the game. They are actually the perfect population for doing this.tysker said:Are you a season ticket holder? Are you willing to give up your seats? We have a loge box which is almost completely socially distanced from others by design. The suites are socially distanced. By mid-Sept most students will have already been exposed and likely immune. How does anyone redesign seating to make it equitable? Telling 50% of season ticket holders that they cant attend the LSU game when A&M may be playing for its first 10-win season in forever, is a non-starter. Attendance seems like an all or none deal.Quote:
the amount of time left to make the decision continues to dwindle that we might have to plan for reduced capacity
regio said:
Expand Kyle Field 150,000 more seats and we can get this to work
The house that wuhan built
From what I've read, it was the pre-game and post-game activities that were probably the greatest spread factor, much like at the Austrian ski resort. Of course, no one was trying to minimize spread at the time. If you think we'd get the same results at a game in the Fall, if folks were required to wear masks and there was screening of some sort before you come in, I would have to disagree.culdeus said:
I'm 100% open up most everything with the exception of confined spaces where people are standing still. If you think that is safe, then you aren't following this closely.
Stadium style seating, even outside is really shaky. That's really where the whole italy thing got started. A single minor league type soccer game.
Then the AD is returning millions of dollars back to donors and allowing students (who pay half price tickets, pay no PSL and don't spend as much money on concessions) to attend in person? While logical it seems as pragmatic as restaurants opening with 25% capacity. Donors may feel cheated given this inequitable solution. If donors stop going to games are they going back? ADs need to think about the long-run too.twk said:I do think it would be difficult to do social distancing with season ticket holders. Even if you just went down the list by priority points, you'd end up with people in club seating stuck in the bleachers somewhere, and then wanting a refund given the difference in level of seating. For that reason, if we do have to have social distancing in the Fall (and that is not a certainty), then for A&M, it seems to me the thing to do is just have students in attendance. You can spread them out, and they draw tickets the week of the game. They are actually the perfect population for doing this.tysker said:Are you a season ticket holder? Are you willing to give up your seats? We have a loge box which is almost completely socially distanced from others by design. The suites are socially distanced. By mid-Sept most students will have already been exposed and likely immune. How does anyone redesign seating to make it equitable? Telling 50% of season ticket holders that they cant attend the LSU game when A&M may be playing for its first 10-win season in forever, is a non-starter. Attendance seems like an all or none deal.Quote:
the amount of time left to make the decision continues to dwindle that we might have to plan for reduced capacity
tysker said:I'm trying to approach from a pragmatic and equitable vantage point. Are selling your ticket back? How are ADs going to "force" reduction of reserved seating? If you were around for the Kyle Field reseating lawsuits for endowed donors, you know people will fight for what they think they are due.Proposition Joe said:tysker said:Are you a season ticket holder? Are you willing to give up your seats? We have a loge box which is almost completely socially distanced from others by design. The suites are socially distanced. By mid-Sept most students will have already been exposed and likely immune. How does anyone redesign seating to make it equitable? Telling 50% of season ticket holders that they cant attend the LSU game when A&M may be playing for its first 10-win season in forever, is a non-starter. Attendance seems like an all or none deal.Quote:
the amount of time left to make the decision continues to dwindle that we might have to plan for reduced capacity
If you are approaching this from the viewpoint that it's "all or none" then you aren't approaching this from a logical viewpoint.
Obviously reduced attendance is not something anyone wants. Obviously reduced attendance is a logistical headache.
But this idea that these athletic departments are going to say "we aren't willing to accept 30-50% of the gate, we'll just deal with 0% gate" isn't logical. It's in no way "all or nothing" and our athletic director literally says as much in the linked video.
As for how you handle season ticket holders in that situation - you refund/credit them and sell the reduced capacity games as single games.
See above. It's easy. Refund/Credit all season ticket holders. Sell reduced capacity games as season tickets (as this allows you to modify seat select to only allow certain seats). Offer season ticket holders an earlier presale for the individual games.
100% agree. It should be the main talking point. The elderly and morbidly obese(35+ BMIs) should be well informed that they are the most likely to be hospitalized by this. And by a long shot. You're more than welcome to live your life as you see fit, but to have as much knowledge on your own individual risk as possible. That's the best way moving forward to me.Beat40 said:culdeus said:CT75 said:What if the high risk people understand the risks and want to go vs. hide under their beds? Why does that make them selfish...why is the government trying to protect them if they understand the risks and want to go?culdeus said:beerad12man said:
But what's the end game? What does it mean to say going to a football game isn't about us? We all the have the choice to go or not. If you fear a massive outbreak as a result of these games overwhelming the hospitals, I still say that's extremely unlikely, particularly of the game is filled with 95% lower risk people and the elderly/people with co-morbidities mostly stay home.
A big part of me thinks we are trying to hard to suppress this thing when in reality, we need to let it cycle through the less risk people ASAP so that us, the elderly, and co-morbidity population/high risk people can all move on as quickly as possible. If you get the healthier people sick, then the virus loses steam and you let the higher risk come back out of hiding even sooner. Instead of sequester us all and continue to drag this out.
I'll change my tune if a vaccine becomes a legit possibility in the next few months. Otherwise we are just delaying this thing and not really reducing the total amount of deaths
There is no method/enforcement to make high risk people stay home, that's the issue. Because we have selfish high risk people, nobody gets to go.
Having been to quite a few TAMU games lately, the entire 2nd deck is just jammed full of high risk people that paid a crap ton for those seats and PSL. No way we can get them to stay home while the millenials go in their place, none.
Are you saying they have a high-risk of dying from the virus? If they want to go and understand the risks...let them go.
I don't feel high risk people understand the risks. I'm not for nanny state here, ever. But we need cooler heads to win here. And there's just no reason for fans to be in person at Kyle this fall.
We can't risk elementary schools not re opening and a gigantic case surge right at elem opening would be the second economy wave that finally takes us all down.
To the bolded part...most of the reason the high risk population doesn't understand the risk is because no one a the local, state, or federal level is even talking about it as a way to mitigate this virus. Those statistics should be hammered at every single press conference and at least every three days by the MSM, but they aren't. We are sticking with a one size fits all messaging. People generally have their self interest in mind most of the time. You start supplying statistics based on high risk populations, and I'd guarantee a large portion of that population would reduce their own risk.
Featured Stories
See All
No. 22 Aggies fall to No. 9 Oklahoma on Friday night, 8-7
by Richard Zane
16:22
20h ago
3.0k
11:09
1d ago
8.4k
Troublesome C-minus showing gets A&M dominated by Oklahoma
by Olin Buchanan
35:54
21h ago
3.4k
1:30
23h ago
753
Rylan Griffen ready to refocus as the Aggies eye the Big Dance
by Luke Evangelist