https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...s-concerns

Quote:Among the Big Ten players' demands:

Third-party, approved by players, to administer COVID testing and to enforce all COVID-19 health and safety standards

Sufficient penalties for noncompliance.

Mandate for athletics personnel to report suspected violations.

Whistleblower protections for athletics personnel and college athletes reporting a suspected violation.

Ban the use of COVID-19 liability waivers.

Automatic medical redshirt for any player who misses any competitions due to a positive test or a mandatory quarantine due to contact tracing.

Preserve athletic eligibility, scholarship, and roster spot for any player who opts out of athletic participation or is unable to play more than 40% of their scheduled season due to COVID-19 or season postponement/cancellation.

Coverage for all out-of-pocket medical expenses related to COVID-19 (both short-term and long-term) incurred by active college athletes.

Seems like trust is incredibly low among players that the schools will look out for the interests of the players over their television profits.

These are all realistic demands with the goal of safety at the forefront.

Like the PAC 12 students, there's a likely a couple hundred athletes on a group chat comparing and contrasting how their schools are handling this.

(08-05-2020 12:00 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...s-concerns

Quote:Among the Big Ten players' demands:

Third-party, approved by players, to administer COVID testing and to enforce all COVID-19 health and safety standards

Sufficient penalties for noncompliance.

Mandate for athletics personnel to report suspected violations.

Whistleblower protections for athletics personnel and college athletes reporting a suspected violation.

Ban the use of COVID-19 liability waivers.

Automatic medical redshirt for any player who misses any competitions due to a positive test or a mandatory quarantine due to contact tracing.

Preserve athletic eligibility, scholarship, and roster spot for any player who opts out of athletic participation or is unable to play more than 40% of their scheduled season due to COVID-19 or season postponement/cancellation.

Coverage for all out-of-pocket medical expenses related to COVID-19 (both short-term and long-term) incurred by active college athletes.

Seems like trust is incredibly low among players that the schools will look out for the interests of the players over their television profits.

"Ban the use of COVID-19 liability waivers" will be a huge sticking point. Schools are not going to open themselves up to being sued. Can't see it happening.

These are much more focused and realistic than the P12 group.

(08-05-2020 12:16 PM)MU88 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 12:00 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...s-concerns

Quote:Among the Big Ten players' demands:

Third-party, approved by players, to administer COVID testing and to enforce all COVID-19 health and safety standards

Sufficient penalties for noncompliance.

Mandate for athletics personnel to report suspected violations.

Whistleblower protections for athletics personnel and college athletes reporting a suspected violation.

Ban the use of COVID-19 liability waivers.

Automatic medical redshirt for any player who misses any competitions due to a positive test or a mandatory quarantine due to contact tracing.

Preserve athletic eligibility, scholarship, and roster spot for any player who opts out of athletic participation or is unable to play more than 40% of their scheduled season due to COVID-19 or season postponement/cancellation.

Coverage for all out-of-pocket medical expenses related to COVID-19 (both short-term and long-term) incurred by active college athletes.

Seems like trust is incredibly low among players that the schools will look out for the interests of the players over their television profits.

"Ban the use of COVID-19 liability waivers" will be a huge sticking point. Schools are not going to open themselves up to being sued. Can't see it happening.

Could be?
The BIG, around a month ago, offered players the right to "sit this one out" and not lose a years eligibility. It's a play at your own risk kind of offer. Yes, with this offer in place, the one you're referring to could be a huge sticking point.

(08-05-2020 12:16 PM)MU88 Wrote:  "Ban the use of COVID-19 liability waivers" will be a huge sticking point. Schools are not going to open themselves up to being sued. Can't see it happening.

Schools wouldn't have to worry about being sued if they were being honest with their students/athletes. Even if athletes signed the waivers it wouldn't prevent the universities/colleges from being sued. Nothing is iron clad proof.

Waivers also generally don't really offer much in the terms of actual legal protection

These are all reasonable demands, they focus on CV19 safety and status protection for players who get sick.

(08-05-2020 12:02 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  These are all realistic demands with the goal of safety at the forefront.

Most of them already exist. I think the "lack of trust" comment is spot on.

(08-05-2020 12:16 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  These are much more focused and realistic than the P12 group.

These make sense.

(08-05-2020 12:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 12:02 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  These are all realistic demands with the goal of safety at the forefront.

Most of them already exist. I think the "lack of trust" comment is spot on.

Look at the Colorado State situation. Lack of trust seems completely justified there, and there are probably similar situations with other teams. Addazio is a jerk, but he isn't the only jerk coaching college football.