Kevin Warren's seat getting warm yet?

USFFan

(08-27-2020 11:40 AM)usffan Wrote:  

Kevin Warren's seat getting warm yet?

USFFan

This will go about as far as the PAC-12 player demands for 40% of the conference revenue before the conference shut down for the fall.

Finally a movement by players I can get behind!

(08-27-2020 11:40 AM)usffan Wrote:  

Kevin Warren's seat getting warm yet?

USFFan

This will be an instant loser in court.

At the same time, these players would be the first ones to sue the university if they ended up contracting COVID-19 if the Big Ten *did* play. I don't believe that the Big Ten commissioner messaged this well at all, but the league should absolutely NOT let the public whining (much of it politically driven) determine their decisions.

As I've noted elsewhere, it would be quite ironic if the Big Ten and Pac-12 end up playing more games in the winter/spring than the 3 P5 leagues that are charging ahead this fall. Generally, it's a good bet to back the institutions that are basing their decisions on safety and science. We'll see who's complaining in a few weeks when it's a fairly good bet that we'll see games start getting cancelled due to outbreaks.

(08-27-2020 12:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This will be an instant loser in court.

At the same time, these players would be the first ones to sue the university if they ended up contracting COVID-19 if the Big Ten *did* play. I don't believe that the Big Ten commissioner messaged this well at all, but the league should absolutely NOT let the public whining (much of it politically driven) determine their decisions.

As I've noted elsewhere, it would be quite ironic if the Big Ten and Pac-12 end up playing more games in the winter/spring than the 3 P5 leagues that are charging ahead this fall. Generally, it's a good bet to back the institutions that are basing their decisions on safety and science. We'll see who's complaining in a few weeks when it's a fairly good bet that we'll see games start getting cancelled due to outbreaks.

Well safety and science award goes to the SEC/Big 12/ACC/CUSA/Sun Belt/AAC who are closely monitoring the health of their student/athletes now. They aren't relying on a sloppy heart/corona study.

(08-27-2020 12:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This will be an instant loser in court.

Yes, but it serves the social function of continuing to highlight the division and ineptitude within the B1G, and to hold its feet to the fire over their premature decision to cancel the season.

Are the B1G and PAC institutions really basing their decisions on safety and science?

What do safety and science say about the thousands of high school football players and coaches that have already played 2 or 3 games with minimal COVID spread or disruption?

Could it be that one man's safety and science is another man's paranoia and control?

(08-27-2020 12:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-27-2020 12:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This will be an instant loser in court.

At the same time, these players would be the first ones to sue the university if they ended up contracting COVID-19 if the Big Ten *did* play. I don't believe that the Big Ten commissioner messaged this well at all, but the league should absolutely NOT let the public whining (much of it politically driven) determine their decisions.

As I've noted elsewhere, it would be quite ironic if the Big Ten and Pac-12 end up playing more games in the winter/spring than the 3 P5 leagues that are charging ahead this fall. Generally, it's a good bet to back the institutions that are basing their decisions on safety and science. We'll see who's complaining in a few weeks when it's a fairly good bet that we'll see games start getting cancelled due to outbreaks.

Well safety and science award goes to the SEC/Big 12/ACC/CUSA/Sun Belt/AAC who are closely monitoring the health of their student/athletes now. They aren't relying on a sloppy heart/corona study.

Yes, it's ironic that the side that claims the mantle of Science, the cancel side, is actually the side that has acted based on fear of the unknown, incomplete results, unproven what-ifs, etc.

(08-27-2020 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-27-2020 12:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-27-2020 12:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This will be an instant loser in court.

At the same time, these players would be the first ones to sue the university if they ended up contracting COVID-19 if the Big Ten *did* play. I don't believe that the Big Ten commissioner messaged this well at all, but the league should absolutely NOT let the public whining (much of it politically driven) determine their decisions.

As I've noted elsewhere, it would be quite ironic if the Big Ten and Pac-12 end up playing more games in the winter/spring than the 3 P5 leagues that are charging ahead this fall. Generally, it's a good bet to back the institutions that are basing their decisions on safety and science. We'll see who's complaining in a few weeks when it's a fairly good bet that we'll see games start getting cancelled due to outbreaks.

Well safety and science award goes to the SEC/Big 12/ACC/CUSA/Sun Belt/AAC who are closely monitoring the health of their student/athletes now. They aren't relying on a sloppy heart/corona study.

Yes, it's ironic that the side that claims the mantle of Science, the cancel side, is actually the side that has acted based on fear of the unknown, incomplete results, unproven what-ifs, etc.

Amen....

They could at least consider to make decisions based on reality and the true risk-benefit analysis:

PAC 12 Networks let go of entire digital staff

(08-27-2020 12:59 PM)YNot Wrote:  Are the B1G and PAC institutions really basing their decisions on safety and science?

What do safety and science say about the thousands of high school football players and coaches that have already played 2 or 3 games with minimal COVID spread or disruption?

Could it be that one man's safety and science is another man's paranoia and control?

This. All of this.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(08-27-2020 12:59 PM)YNot Wrote:  Are the B1G and PAC institutions really basing their decisions on safety and science?

What do safety and science say about the thousands of high school football players and coaches that have already played 2 or 3 games with minimal COVID spread or disruption?

Could it be that one man's safety and science is another man's paranoia and control?

(08-27-2020 12:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-27-2020 12:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This will be an instant loser in court.

At the same time, these players would be the first ones to sue the university if they ended up contracting COVID-19 if the Big Ten *did* play. I don't believe that the Big Ten commissioner messaged this well at all, but the league should absolutely NOT let the public whining (much of it politically driven) determine their decisions.

As I've noted elsewhere, it would be quite ironic if the Big Ten and Pac-12 end up playing more games in the winter/spring than the 3 P5 leagues that are charging ahead this fall. Generally, it's a good bet to back the institutions that are basing their decisions on safety and science. We'll see who's complaining in a few weeks when it's a fairly good bet that we'll see games start getting cancelled due to outbreaks.

Well safety and science award goes to the SEC/Big 12/ACC/CUSA/Sun Belt/AAC who are closely monitoring the health of their student/athletes now. They aren't relying on a sloppy heart/corona study.

They're pretty much not relying on anything if you think about it. They're gonna play regardless....lol. Just throwing caution into the winds and letting the chips fall where they may.

(08-27-2020 12:59 PM)YNot Wrote:  Are the B1G and PAC institutions really basing their decisions on safety and science?

What do safety and science say about the thousands of high school football players and coaches that have already played 2 or 3 games with minimal COVID spread or disruption?

Could it be that one man's safety and science is another man's paranoia and control?

I'm sorry, but this seems pretty similar to the huffing and puffing of how well places like Florida and Texas supposedly managed to hold cases down in the spring compared to New York and New Jersey... and then we saw what happened within a couple of months of those states' approaches of thinking that this would magically go away. For all the complaining about economic shutdowns and freedoms, this country would actually be fully open *safely* like other countries in Asia and Europe if all states actually put in the work that they needed to in March and April. And then, a disproportionate amount of the people (not all) complaining about economic shutdowns end up being the same ones complaining about the simple measures like masks and social distancing that actually would allow our economy to start functioning again. Our parents and grandparents dealt with the Great Depression, constant wars and military drafts while people today whine about having to wear a piece of cloth and not being able to watch some kids playing football games. I'm sick of it.

Beyond the macro level issues, if people are just going to deny the outbreaks on college campuses everywhere where these players are actually going to be attending, then they're just being willfully ignorant. The "we're just going to go on as normal and hope that it's going to go away and no one gets seriously ill or dies" approach didn't work in March and it's not going to work now.

(08-27-2020 12:59 PM)YNot Wrote:  What do safety and science say about the thousands of high school football players and coaches that have already played 2 or 3 games with minimal COVID spread or disruption?

Just wait for it. It takes a couple of weeks to determine if there will be an increase in cases. And based off what I have seen in Alabama from the 1st week, Imma go out on a limb and say you'll start seeing an increase in cases with students and players in high school.

Moody Blue Devil football sidelined two games related to Covid-19
Battle of Pritchard postponed due to COVID-19
Coach breaks silence on decision to play high school football in Alabama

excerpt Wrote:“There are no testing policies. Zero,” Rose said. “Of course players want to play. Players want to do a lot of things. It’s the adults that are supposed to be protecting them. It’s our jobs.”

The AHSAA, the state of Alabama and local school districts have failed in that fundamental responsibility when people needed their leadership most of all. High school football without testing is putting families and communities at great risk and, as Rose put it in an editorial for the Auburn-Opelika News, it is “unconscionable.”

This is a frivolous lawsuit

1. Players are not professionals. Therefore, they have no business expectations.

2. Players are not party to any contractual obligations between universities and the Big Ten. Additionally their scholarships are being honored, and they are not losing a year of eligibility, so the season postponement does not detrimentally impact their standing with their respective universities.

3. The Big Ten is not a public agency. They do not have to maintain or produce records for public consumption. Nor do they have to adhere to policies of the governing documents if the members agree to waive those policies.

These kids and their parents have no leg to stand on and could find themselves being countersued by the Big Ten for legal fees related to this ridiculous lawsuit.

(08-27-2020 12:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This will be an instant loser in court.

At the same time, these players would be the first ones to sue the university if they ended up contracting COVID-19 if the Big Ten *did* play. I don't believe that the Big Ten commissioner messaged this well at all, but the league should absolutely NOT let the public whining (much of it politically driven) determine their decisions.

As I've noted elsewhere, it would be quite ironic if the Big Ten and Pac-12 end up playing more games in the winter/spring than the 3 P5 leagues that are charging ahead this fall. Generally, it's a good bet to back the institutions that are basing their decisions on safety and science. We'll see who's complaining in a few weeks when it's a fairly good bet that we'll see games start getting cancelled due to outbreaks.

Frank.....it's refreshing to see someone try to stick up for the B1G especially since the Big Ten has given you so little to work with.

Interesting. How many student-athletes have sued their school or conference arguing that playing football during COVID is unsafe and too dangerous to play?

(08-27-2020 12:59 PM)YNot Wrote:  Are the B1G and PAC institutions really basing their decisions on safety and science?

What do safety and science say about the thousands of high school football players and coaches that have already played 2 or 3 games with minimal COVID spread or disruption?

Could it be that one man's safety and science is another man's paranoia and control?

And as Frank repeatedly points out, there is a liability concern.

There is also a unionization concern.