CFB is basically cancelled is it safe for our kids to play?

I tend to look more at the map of governors since national politics can be very different than local politics. 8 of 14 schools in Big 10 are in blue states. 10 of 14 of pac 12 are in blue states. 8 of 14(15 if notre dame is included) acc schools are in blue states. 12 of 14 SEC schools are in red states. 7 of 9 big 12 schools are in red states.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_governors

We've met before?  Interesting.  I appreciate the compliments.  That being said, I'm definitely not a conspiracy theorist.  But I can't deny that the two P5 football conferences who pulled out of fall football first were the "bluest" of the 5 based on the states in which they reside.  I really don't mean that to come off as a judgment against those states/conferences, just an observation that's worth noting.  Again, I don't know much about slickdaddy's posts but felt that mistergrinch's statement that the Big 10 was mostly made up of red states didn't seem to add up based on recent history.

FWIW the MAC was the first to opt out: Michigan(3), Ohio(6), Indiana(1), Illinois(1) and New York(1) with Ohio and Indiana being (R) and Ohio, Michigan and Indiana voted (R) for POTUS in 2016. This decision is purely about money and liability, it's not about who they voted for. The All Mighty Dollar is what most universities care about in the end.

To the initial question I don't think cancelling/postponing college football should have a lot of barring on academy soccer (not saying that it won't) or if it is safe for kids to play. I think having young adults in a college setting will provide very little ability for the schools and athletic programs to really control the amount of contact, etc. these athletes have with the outside world. Which will make the risk for infection high. Additionally, the game itself is drastically different. The amount of contact, time in close proximity to others (on the field, film study, weight room, etc.) is much higher than soccer (especially academy soccer). Once a case happens within a college football program it will be very hard to contain it or to do any realistic form of contact tracing. But to me an equally large factor in these decisions have to do with revenue generation. Football without fans removes the majority of the programs' actual revenue (estimated about 75% of revenue). So most if not all programs will operate at a loss without having fans in the stands. So while people on the outside are upset at no football for many schools (I am one that can't wait each year for college football to come on) you are talking about potentially risking people's lives/long term health, (relatively new virus with little known about it) especially if you have fans, for people's entertainment value all while losing money for the university? Doesn't make a lot of sense to say yes let's play.

Now academy soccer is different to me in that 1) Again the sport is different in regards to the amount of momentary contact and sustained contact 2) These kids are still for the most part under the supervision of parents/adults so you would assume that provides some form of controls to not have a lot of unnecessary exposure to COVID risky situations and 3) There is no operating loss for the clubs/or leagues. Nothing has changed for them. Any controls that are implemented if costs are associated will likely be pushed down to the participants to pay for so no financial impact

But I say all of that with the belief if all of college football is canceled youth soccer will likely be impacted.

These decisions are about power and money grab, not red vs blue states. Politicians come and go, but control can last generations. There's no coincidence the Big 10 and Pac 12 athletes were vocal in their concerns and wanted some assurances in order to play. A week later seasons are postponed?!? The blanketed "we're doing this for safety reasons only" is a farce. I agree with the notion, this will change the college landscape forever and maybe it's time to do so. Whether or not you agree with that stance by student-athletes, its clear the conferences didn't want to go down that rabbit-hole. And the NCAA is a joke! They certainly didn't bat an eye, when they alone made the decision to cancel D-II and D-III fall sports. If the NCAA's leadership role isn't to get involved when the health and safety of the student-athlete is in jeopardy, then what the H**L exactly is their role?

I think we all saw a microcosm of this with the dismantling of DA this spring. If you cant control and generate the revenue as originally constructed or intended, just tear it down and re-brand it as something else.

While I agree with the risk being low enough that I'm good with my kids playing this season, the argument using cars as an example of risk is tiresome and invalid.  We mitigate risk while driving cars(speed, seatbelts, advanced car systems with breaking, lane assist, etc).  Viruses spread without any of that mitigation and unknowingly to most if not all of us.  Yes, wearing a mask may help that but if nobody is wearing a mask using your comparison that's like not wearing a seatbelt in the car...Let's drop that comparison altogether and leave it at if you're not ok with the risk then don't send them out there and be done with it.

I disagree. Despite all our mitigation efforts at reducing mortality in car wrecks, approx 5000 children per year still die as a result each year. It is directly comparable because despite our efforts (or lack thereof) to curb COVId deaths, approx 60-70 children have died as a result of Covid. The numbers are the numbers.

We've established that the kids are far less likely to die or have bad symptoms from covid, but the spread to adults is still the issue as is the underlying conditions it seems to be causing in select young, otherwise healthy people. I've yet to find someone that actually wants to catch the virus and suffer through the weeks of symptoms. Staying on topic of the actual thread, the concern is not just these football players catching the virus but also the liability and risk of even one covid related death over choosing to play a game.

But I can play with numbers also  

Over 6 million confirmed car crashes a year in the US, 37,000 deaths (1600 children).  ~0.6% death rate in those accidents. 
Over 5 million confirmed covid cases in the US, 162,000 deaths(76 under 18).  ~3% death rate in those cases overall.  

Your logic doesn't take into account that we have next to no choice but to drive places so we take that risk and mitigate it as best we can, but we don't have to play youth soccer.  Those that want to play take the risk, and the risk of the asymptomatic, healthy child passing it to someone that won't be.  I actually haven't seen one (vocal) person on this board comment that their child won't play this year, but our U10 team had a handful of kids drop out due to covid concerns and they made the best choice for them.  

Sources:
www.thewanderingrv.com/car-accident-statistics/
covid19.who.int/region/amro/country/us
data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Among-Ages-0-18-Years/nr4s-juj3

Completely selfless act and highly commendable, terrible situation to be in.  

Reductio Ad Hitlerum. Argument over. Back to soccer talk.

Ita vero, Veritas

I appreciate the attempted math lesson (though I promise you I don’t need it). The chances of dying in a car wreck driving to one game is very slight of course but so is the chance of catching covid during that game. I have no problem with people keeping their kids out of soccer if they are concerned. However I want their concern to be based on facts, not irrational. At this point most people’s fear of this virus and it’s potential to kill or seriously harm them is irrational and is not based on data.

tell that to the dead people. 

Ah, so you're a PROFESSIONAL troll!   You're trying to misdirect, but I guess that's the point isn't it.  They're really not the same thing, apples to oranges but I made my point and it's just useless arguing.