(08-19-2020 02:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 02:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  I've seen pictures of fraternity party rooms at Auburn packed so much I wonder if its a fire code violation. Hundreds of kids packed in.

In other words, same as normal. And pretty much what was obvious would happen.

The campus announced today that police will be enforcing the COVID Guidelines on campus from here on out. Stupid are the academics that didn't anticipate this.

I think the academics were being willfully blind here in thinking "Everything will be OK with our rules in place and, if there's an outbreak, we can control it!" That has been my same fear for playing football or any other sports this fall, where it seems to be the same type of rationale. It certainly isn't because I don't *personally* want football and I feel awful for all of the kids that can't just have a normal college experience this year (and possibly for multiple years).

Improve how? 99.98% survival rate instead of 99.96% survival rate?

Sent from my LM-G820 using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-19-2020 02:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  I've seen pictures of fraternity party rooms at Auburn packed so much I wonder if its a fire code violation. Hundreds of kids packed in.

In other words, same as normal. And pretty much what was obvious would happen.

So shut down the schools. What changes?


Instead of these kids going to frat parties they go to other parties with their hometown friends.

(08-19-2020 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 01:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 12:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Actually, Indiana Covid deaths are way down:

https://www.google.com/search?q=indiana+...e&ie=UTF-8

USA cases and deaths have been falling the last week or two as well.

The issue is that college campuses specifically are unique petri dishes similar to nursing homes. Most reasonable people understood that to be the case (see many discussions here over the past few months about the practical impossibility of socially distancing in dorms and the reality that college students will find ways to get together no matter what), but now we see it in practice with the spikes at UNC and ND after just a week. If you multiply that times thousands of other colleges across the country, then that alone can spike the numbers for the entire country... again.

The common counterargument would be that college-aged people have a lower risk of serious symptoms, which I understand. However, as a lawyer, all it takes is one bad case for a university and they are F*CKED.

The problem here Frank is academic rigidity. This we can't have sports unless we have on campus classes is about as stupid a policy as could have been conceived by the so called academics who can't be creative enough to think their way out of a box.

The biggest risk here at Auburn are the incoming Freshmen and Sophomores who are in party high gear. If our schools wanted to make a quantum leap in resolving their financial issues they would open enrollment for core curriculum to unrestricted levels, but all online and remote. This helps them to recoup a lot of revenue they've lost already. All they need do is to solicit a guarantee from all other state schools that all core curriculum course work would transfer anywhere instate without loss of credit.

Getting the Freshmen and Sophomore classes off campus opens more space for graduate work, research, and those pursuing their work in majors and minors in undergraduate. They are older and more responsible than the partiers at every school which are reduced by half at most campuses after 2 years due to sorting the serious students from those who are not.

Let athletes temporarily have a dorm unto themselves and make sure that tutors are there to schedule routine classwork outside of the class settings for the Freshmen and Sophomore athletes and to work with the Juniors and Seniors to minimize their class time which naturally would be in smaller classes on most campuses but could be moved to rooms where spreading out and good air circulation and filtration can be maintained.

I'm willing to bet that the rate of infection in the general society could be easily maintained if the Freshmen and Sophomores took classes from home. When the average 18 year old leaves Mom and Dad's supervision they go apeshit wild their first year at college and this is the norm and not the exception. Sophomores are right there with them, though not in quite the percentage.

All of the orientation groups here in Auburn have gathered without regard to social distancing, don't mask, and act like the young jerks they are. Vandalism and infection rates have increased since their return. Imagine that?

Auburn went from single digit cases reported per week to 40 when they showed back up 2 weeks prior to the Monday open of classes. There's your risk. The whole graduate department throughout the whole pandemic has barely hit 10 cases all traced to outside sources and all quarantined without further spread.

Realistically, the "party risk" is inherent on virtually every college campus. I totally understand why colleges *want* kids to come back to campus when they're generally paying $15,000 to $20,000 per year for room and board that would likely cost a fraction of that amount in the open market. Of course, pretty much all of us with any sense knew that cases were going to spike because of all of the factors that you just mentioned.

If we were actually rational in this country, we'd have less concern with elementary school kids going to school in-person (where the in-person instruction is going to impact their learning abilities for the rest of their lives combined with health risks that are demonstrably lower) and wouldn't even think to have college kids back on-campus (as that is a group that is *biologically* hard-wired to take on unreasonable and irrational risks at that age while literally living on top of each other in dorms and apartment buildings). Instead, we have the opposite.

I'd disagree with the notion of academic rigidity, though... at least if colleges want to continue with the farce of claiming that these are student-athletes instead of professionals. (To be clear, I'd be perfectly happy if colleges got rid of that farce.) It's pretty hard to justify why football should continue if the college deems that the entire student population isn't safe on-campus. The general public health consensus (the "reasonable person standard" for legal purposes, if you will) is that in-person classes with masks and social distancing would be "safe" (whatever that means today), whereas football in and of itself is deemed to be a high risk sport due to amount of direct physical contact and the sizes of teams (even putting aside that 100-plus people need to travel each time that there's a road game). So, if a college doesn't believe that in-person classes are safe when they are supposed to be *safer* than playing football, then as bullet notes, the only reason why football is being played would be for money (which is a bad reason to have amateur athletes play games during an on-campus public health crisis, much less the potential legal exposure involved).

Now, if the players were actually paid salaries with a collectively bargained agreement regarding safety protocols (which is probably going to be the reality sooner rather than later regardless of the pandemic), then that's an entirely different story. In that situation, the players could come back in an Ebola outbreak on-campus if they've collectively bargained to do so. Until then, though, making an exclusion for football (which anyone reasonable person would see is all about revenue) while the entire rest of the campus is deemed "unsafe" is going to be an untenable position for any school.

You double clutched the discussion by shifting twice. Pay for play is not relevant to this discussion and is relevant entirely as a separate issue to viral spread. The second shift was subtle in that ignored my premise. The academics are rigid. They wouldn't have to shut down the whole campus if they culled the Freshmen and Sophomores to online work only. The high risk behavior goes down significantly with upperclassmen and grad students. Auburn had no underclassmen after March and the infection rate among grad students was about .001.

The refusal to be flexible is exactly why they are faced with an all or nothing decision. It ignores the reality of who it is that puts people at risk, and whom it is that can work safely with others. There is no need to shut down college in the age of on line learning and since grad students aren't a risk there is no reason to shut down research and doctoral programs. And quite frankly little reason to stop Juniors and Seniors who can more effectively social distance without the mass of Freshmen and Sophomores who don't have to be impeded on a timeline if they take their core curriculum on line from home saving their parents 50% of the cost of their first two years.

And furthermore, if you drop the enrollment limits for online courses you can make up for the loss of dorm revenue and then cull that group to an acceptable Junior class by taking the best of that group leaving the rest to find another school in state in which to continue their education. So the rising enrollment tide on line eventually floats all state school boats.

That's an interesting proposed approach regarding just having juniors and seniors on campus. My semi-educated guess is that colleges (particularly large state schools) generally get the most room and board demand from freshmen and sophomores (while juniors and seniors are more likely to live in off-campus apartments and houses). As I noted earlier, that room and board translates to significant revenue, so if a college wants to maximize revenue from a particular group of students, their rational economic self-interest would be to *encourage* freshmen and sophomores to come to campus as opposed to the upperclassmen. I'm not saying that's a good thing from a public health perspective AT ALL, but I can clearly see the economic rationale (similar to how I can see the economic rationale to try to play football through hell or high water regardless of whether I think that's safe or not).

Outside of revenue, I can see the broader social reasons, as well. Personally, my freshman year of college was, without question, the most important year of my personal and academic development of my entire life on a whole slew of levels. I know that I'm not alone on that front and it's a big reason why so many of us have such intense feelings for where we went to school. Not being able to be on-campus for freshman year is a HUGE negative - it's a particularly critical transition year for personal and academic development on par with entering kindergarten or high school. Once again, I'm not saying that this is more important than addressing the public health issue (as I believe quite to the contrary), but I understand it at a guttural/emotional level.

(08-19-2020 02:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 02:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  I've seen pictures of fraternity party rooms at Auburn packed so much I wonder if its a fire code violation. Hundreds of kids packed in.

In other words, same as normal. And pretty much what was obvious would happen.

The campus announced today that police will be enforcing the COVID Guidelines on campus from here on out. Stupid are the academics that didn't anticipate this.

BTW: The COVID cases dropped to single digits weekly shortly after the classes were canceled at the end of March and early April. They jumped to 40 cases a week about 2 weeks ago when the kids started returning to off campus apartments and frequenting the bars. As of Tuesday the number of cases jumped to 80 for this week. But before the board says look, look, Auburn without students has about 15,000 people in it. When class is back in session it jumps to 50,000. So jumping to 80 cases doesn't raise the overall rate of infection that much. But it does tell you what age group is propagating the infection.

Heard they were now requiring masks at all times on campus, even outside. When we were there moving in I saw 1 student with a mask other than those working at booths and that one was indoors. Now there still weren't a lot of students there and I didn't see "packs," but masks were few and far between.

(08-19-2020 02:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 01:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 12:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The issue is that college campuses specifically are unique petri dishes similar to nursing homes. Most reasonable people understood that to be the case (see many discussions here over the past few months about the practical impossibility of socially distancing in dorms and the reality that college students will find ways to get together no matter what), but now we see it in practice with the spikes at UNC and ND after just a week. If you multiply that times thousands of other colleges across the country, then that alone can spike the numbers for the entire country... again.

The common counterargument would be that college-aged people have a lower risk of serious symptoms, which I understand. However, as a lawyer, all it takes is one bad case for a university and they are F*CKED.

The problem here Frank is academic rigidity. This we can't have sports unless we have on campus classes is about as stupid a policy as could have been conceived by the so called academics who can't be creative enough to think their way out of a box.

The biggest risk here at Auburn are the incoming Freshmen and Sophomores who are in party high gear. If our schools wanted to make a quantum leap in resolving their financial issues they would open enrollment for core curriculum to unrestricted levels, but all online and remote. This helps them to recoup a lot of revenue they've lost already. All they need do is to solicit a guarantee from all other state schools that all core curriculum course work would transfer anywhere instate without loss of credit.

Getting the Freshmen and Sophomore classes off campus opens more space for graduate work, research, and those pursuing their work in majors and minors in undergraduate. They are older and more responsible than the partiers at every school which are reduced by half at most campuses after 2 years due to sorting the serious students from those who are not.

Let athletes temporarily have a dorm unto themselves and make sure that tutors are there to schedule routine classwork outside of the class settings for the Freshmen and Sophomore athletes and to work with the Juniors and Seniors to minimize their class time which naturally would be in smaller classes on most campuses but could be moved to rooms where spreading out and good air circulation and filtration can be maintained.

I'm willing to bet that the rate of infection in the general society could be easily maintained if the Freshmen and Sophomores took classes from home. When the average 18 year old leaves Mom and Dad's supervision they go apeshit wild their first year at college and this is the norm and not the exception. Sophomores are right there with them, though not in quite the percentage.

All of the orientation groups here in Auburn have gathered without regard to social distancing, don't mask, and act like the young jerks they are. Vandalism and infection rates have increased since their return. Imagine that?

Auburn went from single digit cases reported per week to 40 when they showed back up 2 weeks prior to the Monday open of classes. There's your risk. The whole graduate department throughout the whole pandemic has barely hit 10 cases all traced to outside sources and all quarantined without further spread.

Realistically, the "party risk" is inherent on virtually every college campus. I totally understand why colleges *want* kids to come back to campus when they're generally paying $15,000 to $20,000 per year for room and board that would likely cost a fraction of that amount in the open market. Of course, pretty much all of us with any sense knew that cases were going to spike because of all of the factors that you just mentioned.

If we were actually rational in this country, we'd have less concern with elementary school kids going to school in-person (where the in-person instruction is going to impact their learning abilities for the rest of their lives combined with health risks that are demonstrably lower) and wouldn't even think to have college kids back on-campus (as that is a group that is *biologically* hard-wired to take on unreasonable and irrational risks at that age while literally living on top of each other in dorms and apartment buildings). Instead, we have the opposite.

I'd disagree with the notion of academic rigidity, though... at least if colleges want to continue with the farce of claiming that these are student-athletes instead of professionals. (To be clear, I'd be perfectly happy if colleges got rid of that farce.) It's pretty hard to justify why football should continue if the college deems that the entire student population isn't safe on-campus. The general public health consensus (the "reasonable person standard" for legal purposes, if you will) is that in-person classes with masks and social distancing would be "safe" (whatever that means today), whereas football in and of itself is deemed to be a high risk sport due to amount of direct physical contact and the sizes of teams (even putting aside that 100-plus people need to travel each time that there's a road game). So, if a college doesn't believe that in-person classes are safe when they are supposed to be *safer* than playing football, then as bullet notes, the only reason why football is being played would be for money (which is a bad reason to have amateur athletes play games during an on-campus public health crisis, much less the potential legal exposure involved).

Now, if the players were actually paid salaries with a collectively bargained agreement regarding safety protocols (which is probably going to be the reality sooner rather than later regardless of the pandemic), then that's an entirely different story. In that situation, the players could come back in an Ebola outbreak on-campus if they've collectively bargained to do so. Until then, though, making an exclusion for football (which anyone reasonable person would see is all about revenue) while the entire rest of the campus is deemed "unsafe" is going to be an untenable position for any school.

You double clutched the discussion by shifting twice. Pay for play is not relevant to this discussion and is relevant entirely as a separate issue to viral spread. The second shift was subtle in that ignored my premise. The academics are rigid. They wouldn't have to shut down the whole campus if they culled the Freshmen and Sophomores to online work only. The high risk behavior goes down significantly with upperclassmen and grad students. Auburn had no underclassmen after March and the infection rate among grad students was about .001.

The refusal to be flexible is exactly why they are faced with an all or nothing decision. It ignores the reality of who it is that puts people at risk, and whom it is that can work safely with others. There is no need to shut down college in the age of on line learning and since grad students aren't a risk there is no reason to shut down research and doctoral programs. And quite frankly little reason to stop Juniors and Seniors who can more effectively social distance without the mass of Freshmen and Sophomores who don't have to be impeded on a timeline if they take their core curriculum on line from home saving their parents 50% of the cost of their first two years.

And furthermore, if you drop the enrollment limits for online courses you can make up for the loss of dorm revenue and then cull that group to an acceptable Junior class by taking the best of that group leaving the rest to find another school in state in which to continue their education. So the rising enrollment tide on line eventually floats all state school boats.

That's an interesting proposed approach regarding just having juniors and seniors on campus. My semi-educated guess is that colleges (particularly large state schools) generally get the most room and board demand from freshmen and sophomores (while juniors and seniors are more likely to live in off-campus apartments and houses). As I noted earlier, that room and board translates to significant revenue, so if a college wants to maximize revenue from a particular group of students, their rational economic self-interest would be to *encourage* freshmen and sophomores to come to campus as opposed to the upperclassmen. I'm not saying that's a good thing from a public health perspective AT ALL, but I can clearly see the economic rationale (similar to how I can see the economic rationale to try to play football through hell or high water regardless of whether I think that's safe or not).

Outside of revenue, I can see the broader social reasons, as well. Personally, my freshman year of college was, without question, the most important year of my personal and academic development of my entire life on a whole slew of levels. I know that I'm not alone on that front and it's a big reason why so many of us have such intense feelings for where we went to school. Not being able to be on-campus for freshman year is a HUGE negative - it's a particularly critical transition year for personal and academic development on par with entering kindergarten or high school. Once again, I'm not saying that this is more important than addressing the public health issue (as I believe quite to the contrary), but I understand it at a guttural/emotional level.

I don't disagree with your observations. I just believe we are at the dawn of paradigm shift not only for health reasons but economic and technological reasons and that the confluence of motive (pandemic), incentive (family economics) and opportunity (technology) is about to make a compelling case for why these dynamics are about to change.

My reference to rigidity is exactly for the guttural reasons you suggest. Change is frightening because the reliability of the current dynamic will change. Therefore, the importance of being more intentional about helping incoming Juniors to identify strongly with the school would be a matter that deserves considerable attention.

Either way, during the health crisis is the best time to test these things and work out the kinks, and also to assist in holding the spread numbers down.

(08-19-2020 01:46 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 12:54 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 12:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The elephant in the room with regard to containing the virus is this...

It's not going away.

Not this year, not next year, or the year after that, or the year after that. It might even ramp up as cold weather approaches.

Even if we develop an effective vaccine then most people won't take it...certainly not around the world and unless we're all going to suspend international travel indefinitely then the vaccine won't make that big of a dent anyway. Most people don't even take the flu vaccine, for instance.

We're going to have to learn to live with it. That starts by protecting vulnerable members of the population, but we can't simply stop a virus and hope it dies off. It's out and it's everywhere.

We can, we have. If we get an effective vaccine we just need enough people to take it. A lot of viruses are still around but not many are creating 50K+ new cases a day in the middle of summer. I imagine it will get worse in the winter. I'm hopeful that in the spring we'll have a vaccine that's safe and effective and start forming some herd immunity.

Except for the fact that science has never produced an effective vaccine for any of the Coronavirus family.


"BuT tHeY'vE nEvEr PoUrEd ThIs MuCh MoNeY aNd EfFoRt iNtO pReViOuS aTtEmPtS!" I counter with the fact that far more money, effort, and especially time has been poured into researching a vaccine for HIV and yet here we currently sit with none available.

Not to mention the fact that it's going to be extremely hard to get a significant portion of the public to willingly be injected with something that we have absolutely no idea what the long term effects could be. I'm not an anti-vaxxer by any stretch of the imagination but there's absolutely no way I'm getting any vaccine until there's been at least several years of research proving it's safe. Anyone who does is quite simply a fool.

As far as I know we've never had a Coronavirus Vaccine in Stage III of human trials. Now we have several.

(08-19-2020 12:27 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 12:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:28 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:01 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Then no FB. Almost zero chance things improve in two weeks.

This is just a way to try to scare the students into being more careful. If there's a way keep from sending everyone home, they will do it.

Well if he closes the dorms, its REALLY hard to justify continuing football. Absolutely zero justification other than TV$$s.

There's a simple justification...players are closely monitored and the general student population isn't.

Right now, the schools that want football have greed for tv money than the safety and health of everybody else. The case of reopening everything before we can get this virus under control have to do with greed. It is part of the selflessness of the small minority. There are a lot of downplaying of this virus are on the part of the small group based on greed, and is against the best interest for everybody as a whole.

https://www.si.com/college/tmg/mark-blaudschun/acc-plan

The full article. Interesting that Oklahoma wants to stop, but Texas and the rest of the Big 12 wants to go on. (Realignment folks will surely read into that sentiment something). Interesting alignments.

The 20% on campus plan (mostly labs, overwhelmingly grad students), lumping football players in that group, is the last best chance to allow CFB. Remaining FBS schools are stretching the on campus instruction for football to the absurd extreme to pull this off. But here we are.

(08-19-2020 03:07 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 01:46 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 12:54 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 12:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The elephant in the room with regard to containing the virus is this...

It's not going away.

Not this year, not next year, or the year after that, or the year after that. It might even ramp up as cold weather approaches.

Even if we develop an effective vaccine then most people won't take it...certainly not around the world and unless we're all going to suspend international travel indefinitely then the vaccine won't make that big of a dent anyway. Most people don't even take the flu vaccine, for instance.

We're going to have to learn to live with it. That starts by protecting vulnerable members of the population, but we can't simply stop a virus and hope it dies off. It's out and it's everywhere.

We can, we have. If we get an effective vaccine we just need enough people to take it. A lot of viruses are still around but not many are creating 50K+ new cases a day in the middle of summer. I imagine it will get worse in the winter. I'm hopeful that in the spring we'll have a vaccine that's safe and effective and start forming some herd immunity.

Except for the fact that science has never produced an effective vaccine for any of the Coronavirus family.


"BuT tHeY'vE nEvEr PoUrEd ThIs MuCh MoNeY aNd EfFoRt iNtO pReViOuS aTtEmPtS!" I counter with the fact that far more money, effort, and especially time has been poured into researching a vaccine for HIV and yet here we currently sit with none available.

Not to mention the fact that it's going to be extremely hard to get a significant portion of the public to willingly be injected with something that we have absolutely no idea what the long term effects could be. I'm not an anti-vaxxer by any stretch of the imagination but there's absolutely no way I'm getting any vaccine until there's been at least several years of research proving it's safe. Anyone who does is quite simply a fool.

As far as I know we've never had a Coronavirus Vaccine in Stage III of human trials. Now we have several.

You go right ahead and subject yourself to another Cutter Incident with a rush job vaccine. I'm more than happy to wait until the technology is mature and proven.

(08-19-2020 01:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 01:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 01:29 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Players can opt out.

Players can quit.

Who is making them play?

If a school will continue honoring their scholarship if they don't play, then I would agree that's a legitimate choice for the player.

If a school doesn't honor their scholarship if they don't choose to play, then that's not a legitimate choice for the player.

The B1G, PAC, and SEC at least already announced back in July that athletes opting out of Fall sports because of CV concerns would have their scholarships honored:

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...oronavirus

It should be noted, that deals with the revocation of scholarships for lack of participation during the terms of said scholarships and not with the renewal of scholarships. Most scholarships are still going to be one year renewables and a coach can still decline to renew one for any reason he likes.

Not saying this or that coach would do that to a player who opts out, but it is a possibility, and those schools must know that that possibility must play in the back of the minds of players who dream of the NFL but are not yet proven to be NFL caliber. That and the fact that those same players know they could fall in the depth chart if they opt out this season, even if their schollies are renewed.

Now UNC is taking a short break



https://twitter.com/BruceFeldmanCFB/stat...2451412992

(08-19-2020 11:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:01 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Then no FB. Almost zero chance things improve in two weeks.

Actually, Indiana Covid deaths are way down:

https://www.google.com/search?q=indiana+...e&ie=UTF-8

USA cases and deaths have been falling the last week or two as well.

The issue is that college campuses specifically are unique petri dishes similar to nursing homes. Most reasonable people understood that to be the case (see many discussions here over the past few months about the practical impossibility of socially distancing in dorms and the reality that college students will find ways to get together no matter what), but now we see it in practice with the spikes at UNC and ND after just a week. If you multiply that times thousands of other colleges across the country, then that alone can spike the numbers for the entire country... again.

The common counterargument would be that college-aged people have a lower risk of serious symptoms, which I understand. However, as a lawyer, all it takes is one bad case for a university and they are F*CKED.

IDK if that is true. There is a really strong argument that university can do all it can, take every reasonable measure, and people are still going to get sick. I'd argue that completely shutting down operations for an indefinite period of time until the pandemic passes is not a reasonable measure. This is especially true if we consider the agency of the student body to come to school for a new semester and are well appraised of the situation and decide to come anyway. Yes, you will have some argue that "they didn't know" but I don't think that is particularly convincing.

I think we are at the point where you have to keep pushing ahead in your operations, do what you can in the meantime, but the world won't stop for this and neither can we.

The fun has spread to North Carolina

https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/1296930277952851969


https://www.dailytarheel.com/article/202...-dashboard

(08-19-2020 04:18 PM)chester Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 01:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 01:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 01:29 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Players can opt out.

Players can quit.

Who is making them play?

If a school will continue honoring their scholarship if they don't play, then I would agree that's a legitimate choice for the player.

If a school doesn't honor their scholarship if they don't choose to play, then that's not a legitimate choice for the player.

The B1G, PAC, and SEC at least already announced back in July that athletes opting out of Fall sports because of CV concerns would have their scholarships honored:

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...oronavirus

It should be noted, that deals with the revocation of scholarships for lack of participation during the terms of said scholarships and not with the renewal of scholarships. Most scholarships are still going to be one year renewables and a coach can still decline to renew one for any reason he likes.

Well yeah but that's the way it always is. It would be absurd to give Covid opt-outers a greater scholarship guarantee, in the form of more than a year, than players who decide to play get.

So IMO the SEC policy is eminently fair.

(08-21-2020 06:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 04:18 PM)chester Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 01:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 01:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 01:29 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Players can opt out.

Players can quit.

Who is making them play?

If a school will continue honoring their scholarship if they don't play, then I would agree that's a legitimate choice for the player.

If a school doesn't honor their scholarship if they don't choose to play, then that's not a legitimate choice for the player.

The B1G, PAC, and SEC at least already announced back in July that athletes opting out of Fall sports because of CV concerns would have their scholarships honored:

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...oronavirus

It should be noted, that deals with the revocation of scholarships for lack of participation during the terms of said scholarships and not with the renewal of scholarships. Most scholarships are still going to be one year renewables and a coach can still decline to renew one for any reason he likes.

Not saying this or that coach would do that to a player who opts out, but it is a possibility, and those schools must know that that possibility must play in the back of the minds of players who dream of the NFL but are not yet proven to be NFL caliber. That and the fact that those same players know they could fall in the depth chart if they opt out this season, even if their schollies are renewed.

Well yeah but that's the way it always is. It would be absurd to give Covid opt-outers a greater scholarship guarantee, in the form of more than a year, than players who decide to play get.

So IMO the SEC policy is eminently fair.

I did not mean to imply that those who opt out should be guaranteed a scholarship renewal while the others aren't. My point is that the decision to opt in or out can't be a clear cut, easy one for at least some of the players who are concerned about their health. And their schools must know that to be case...

(08-21-2020 07:03 PM)chester Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 06:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 04:18 PM)chester Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 01:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 01:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  If a school will continue honoring their scholarship if they don't play, then I would agree that's a legitimate choice for the player.

If a school doesn't honor their scholarship if they don't choose to play, then that's not a legitimate choice for the player.

The B1G, PAC, and SEC at least already announced back in July that athletes opting out of Fall sports because of CV concerns would have their scholarships honored:

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...oronavirus

It should be noted, that deals with the revocation of scholarships for lack of participation during the terms of said scholarships and not with the renewal of scholarships. Most scholarships are still going to be one year renewables and a coach can still decline to renew one for any reason he likes.

Not saying this or that coach would do that to a player who opts out, but it is a possibility, and those schools must know that that possibility must play in the back of the minds of players who dream of the NFL but are not yet proven to be NFL caliber. That and the fact that those same players know they could fall in the depth chart if they opt out this season, even if their schollies are renewed.

Well yeah but that's the way it always is. It would be absurd to give Covid opt-outers a greater scholarship guarantee, in the form of more than a year, than players who decide to play get.

So IMO the SEC policy is eminently fair.

I did not mean to imply that those who opt out should be guaranteed a scholarship renewal while the others aren't. My point is that the decision to opt in or out can't be a clear cut, easy one for at least some of the players who are concerned about their health. And their schools must know that to be case...

I agree with that, but who says a decision has to be clear-cut and easy? Lots of life decisions, especially big ones, often have major pros and cons to them. Part of becoming an adult is making such decisions.

I do know one thing - if I was a player, I would like to have the power to make that decision myself, not have it imposed on me by a canceling conference.

(08-19-2020 03:45 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 12:27 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 12:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:28 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:01 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Then no FB. Almost zero chance things improve in two weeks.

This is just a way to try to scare the students into being more careful. If there's a way keep from sending everyone home, they will do it.

Well if he closes the dorms, its REALLY hard to justify continuing football. Absolutely zero justification other than TV$$s.

There's a simple justification...players are closely monitored and the general student population isn't.

Right now, the schools that want football have greed for tv money than the safety and health of everybody else. The case of reopening everything before we can get this virus under control have to do with greed. It is part of the selflessness of the small minority. There are a lot of downplaying of this virus are on the part of the small group based on greed, and is against the best interest for everybody as a whole.

Not greed, survival. Some schools will shut down if they have to rely on tuition and can’t make $ off of housing, food, and yes, football.

(08-21-2020 07:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 07:03 PM)chester Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 06:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 04:18 PM)chester Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 01:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The B1G, PAC, and SEC at least already announced back in July that athletes opting out of Fall sports because of CV concerns would have their scholarships honored:

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...oronavirus

It should be noted, that deals with the revocation of scholarships for lack of participation during the terms of said scholarships and not with the renewal of scholarships. Most scholarships are still going to be one year renewables and a coach can still decline to renew one for any reason he likes.

Not saying this or that coach would do that to a player who opts out, but it is a possibility, and those schools must know that that possibility must play in the back of the minds of players who dream of the NFL but are not yet proven to be NFL caliber. That and the fact that those same players know they could fall in the depth chart if they opt out this season, even if their schollies are renewed.

Well yeah but that's the way it always is. It would be absurd to give Covid opt-outers a greater scholarship guarantee, in the form of more than a year, than players who decide to play get.

So IMO the SEC policy is eminently fair.

I did not mean to imply that those who opt out should be guaranteed a scholarship renewal while the others aren't. My point is that the decision to opt in or out can't be a clear cut, easy one for at least some of the players who are concerned about their health. And their schools must know that to be case...

I agree with that, but who says a decision has to be clear-cut and easy? Lots of life decisions, especially big ones, often have major pros and cons to them. Part of becoming an adult is making such decisions.

I do know one thing - if I was a player, I would like to have the power to make that decision myself, not have it imposed on me by a canceling conference.

I think this matter should be clear cut and easy. One of the NCAA's stated principals is this:

"Intercollegiate athletics programs shall be conducted in a manner designed to protect and enhance the physical and educational well-being of student-athletes."

I fail to see how conducting a contact sport that necessitates travel during a pandemic without a vaccine equates to "protecting and enhancing the physical well-being of athletes."

(08-21-2020 08:04 PM)chester Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 07:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 07:03 PM)chester Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 06:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 04:18 PM)chester Wrote:  It should be noted, that deals with the revocation of scholarships for lack of participation during the terms of said scholarships and not with the renewal of scholarships. Most scholarships are still going to be one year renewables and a coach can still decline to renew one for any reason he likes.

Not saying this or that coach would do that to a player who opts out, but it is a possibility, and those schools must know that that possibility must play in the back of the minds of players who dream of the NFL but are not yet proven to be NFL caliber. That and the fact that those same players know they could fall in the depth chart if they opt out this season, even if their schollies are renewed.

Well yeah but that's the way it always is. It would be absurd to give Covid opt-outers a greater scholarship guarantee, in the form of more than a year, than players who decide to play get.

So IMO the SEC policy is eminently fair.

I did not mean to imply that those who opt out should be guaranteed a scholarship renewal while the others aren't. My point is that the decision to opt in or out can't be a clear cut, easy one for at least some of the players who are concerned about their health. And their schools must know that to be case...

I agree with that, but who says a decision has to be clear-cut and easy? Lots of life decisions, especially big ones, often have major pros and cons to them. Part of becoming an adult is making such decisions.

I do know one thing - if I was a player, I would like to have the power to make that decision myself, not have it imposed on me by a canceling conference.

I think this matter should be clear cut and easy. One of the NCAA's stated principals is this:

"Intercollegiate athletics programs shall be conducted in a manner designed to protect and enhance the physical and educational well-being of student-athletes."

I fail to see how conducting a contact sport that necessitates travel during a pandemic without a vaccine equates to "protecting and enhancing the physical well-being of athletes."

So why can’t Karen’s like you stay home and let the rest of us live? Feel free to cower until herd immunity has been reached. You ****** ****** have tried to wreck our country.