In life you take many chances, but we all take assessments of what risks are reckless and extreme. If I want to jump out of a plane the risk mostly impacts me with minimal risk to others. If I'm willing to take the risk of something going wrong that's on me, people who aren't impacted by the decision don't get a say. For driving you are required to pass a driving test to prove that you understand the laws and are capable of handling a vehicle because as a society that is our acceptable standard of mitigating the risk of someone not following traffic laws and causing an accident. It doesn't prevent all accidents, but it's there to reduce them. If I want to get hammered and then drive my car that decision has a major impact on others besides myself so they have an input on whether I should be allowed to do that. They shouldn't have to stay home and off the roads because my freedoms allow me to get drunk and drive. We made driving drunk illegal at the expense of your personal freedom as impact other people's personal freedoms and lives. Drinking's not illegal, just the reckless acts of driving drunk that endangers others.
Packing a stadium with 100,000 people would be something I categorize as reckless and impacts more than the people who are involved. Virus spreads are an exponential growth problem. We've been trying to decrease the rate of exposure to avoid overwhelming our medical system and so far have done a decent job. With 100,000 people in close proximity the rate of exposure increases and potentially undoes what we've been working on preventing.
As an example in a fictional scenario student A has the virus and with limited social interaction through what's necessary for classes or with friends students B and C get infected. Let's say neither B or C go home on the weekends and have limited social interaction with anyone else outside of A, B, and C. That can be contained once we know A had the virus and B and C quarantine themselves and don't spread it beyond what they have. There will be some spread beyond that but hopefully we can contain it. Now if we add football games to it student A passes it to B and C, as well as D, E, F, G, H, and I. The following week each of those then pass it one to several other students. Those students will go home and introduce it into their local communities who had previously done a good job of isolating the virus. By the time we realize student A has it the virus has spread well beyond any easy way to try slow the spread short of another lock down/quarantine. A situation like this won't just be at A&M, but at every college with a football program. A rapid spread like this could lead to a strain on our resources that we have been working on preventing.
I don't see any signs that we will have wide spread testing available to everyone with enough accuracy to limit the spread the moment it's detected. With sufficient testing I believe we can still have football but not with packed stadiums. Depending on what the situation is in the fall we will either have no one in the stands or a limited number of people in the stands. To reiterate, 100,000 people in the stands is reckless and I don't see any scenario where it ends well. Maybe it doesn't lead to a massive outbreak, but it will spread the virus and is a risk that we shouldn't be taking.
Any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still know where his towel is, is clearly a man to be reckoned with.