(08-21-2020 10:51 PM)VCE Wrote:  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.

Egads... Recommend that the SEC, ACC & Big XII not call upon you to witness for them when the lawsuits start rolling in.

(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."

Well clearly it isn't, as the FBS conferences are split on how to proceed, and obviously some of them disagree with you.

I suspect players feel the same, as many of them want to play too. So many are finding it to be a tough choice, not an easy one. That's the reality regardless of what we might hope.

Also, I fail to see how canceling football would make players more safe than not canceling football. Yes, when on the field they will not be wearing masks or engaging in social distancing. But they will be subject to greater testing protocols as well. Plus, even under ordinary times, football players live a quasi-isolated regimen during the season. They are often in meetings and practices and traveling in a kind of quasi-bubble, isolated from others to a significant extent. You lose that if football is canceled.

To me, there's no reason to think they will be less likely to get the virus if there is no football and they are out there mingling more with the rest of their peers and society. They might be or might not be, it's an open question.

And I certainly don't see any reason to take the decision to participate away from the student-athlete. Frank and other lawyers have said that if their scholarships could be pulled if they choose not to play, the athletes would be under an undue form of pressure that would make their choice to play or not a kind of false one. I disagree, but given that the conferences have in fact taken that form of pressure away by guaranteeing their scholarships, I think it obviously is a fair position to be put in.

(08-22-2020 08:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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:  [quote='quo vadis' pid='16957209' dateline='1598051156']

And I certainly don't see any reason to take the decision to participate away from the student-athlete. Frank and other lawyers have said that if their scholarships could be pulled if they choose not to play, the athletes would be under an undue form of pressure that would make their choice to play or not a kind of false one. I disagree, but given that the conferences have in fact taken that form of pressure away by guaranteeing their scholarships, I think it obviously is a fair position to be put in.

I agree student has the right to make a decision to play or not play, I disagree about the school being forced to keep their scholarship in place. They are being given a scholarship and stipends and room n board for playing. My wife works for the county. She is expected to go to work 3 days per week and work at home 2. If she decides she is not willing to risk the 3 days work, they should not be required to keep paying her. If I quit servicing my customers, I won't get paid. I have the right to stop doing my job, but no right to expect customers to pay me.

(08-22-2020 08:12 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(08-22-2020 08:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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:  [quote='quo vadis' pid='16957209' dateline='1598051156']

And I certainly don't see any reason to take the decision to participate away from the student-athlete. Frank and other lawyers have said that if their scholarships could be pulled if they choose not to play, the athletes would be under an undue form of pressure that would make their choice to play or not a kind of false one. I disagree, but given that the conferences have in fact taken that form of pressure away by guaranteeing their scholarships, I think it obviously is a fair position to be put in.

I agree student has the right to make a decision to play or not play, I disagree about the school being forced to keep their scholarship in place. They are being given a scholarship and stipends and room n board for playing. My wife works for the county. She is expected to go to work 3 days per week and work at home 2. If she decides she is not willing to risk the 3 days work, they should not be required to keep paying her. If I quit servicing my customers, I won't get paid. I have the right to stop doing my job, but no right to expect customers to pay me.

I see that you are comparing "student-athletes" with people working as employees in a regular paying job.

That is the tricky part here, as colleges still try to pretend these guys are something other than that in reality.

(08-22-2020 08:12 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(08-22-2020 08:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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:  [quote='quo vadis' pid='16957209' dateline='1598051156']

And I certainly don't see any reason to take the decision to participate away from the student-athlete. Frank and other lawyers have said that if their scholarships could be pulled if they choose not to play, the athletes would be under an undue form of pressure that would make their choice to play or not a kind of false one. I disagree, but given that the conferences have in fact taken that form of pressure away by guaranteeing their scholarships, I think it obviously is a fair position to be put in.

I agree student has the right to make a decision to play or not play, I disagree about the school being forced to keep their scholarship in place. They are being given a scholarship and stipends and room n board for playing. My wife works for the county. She is expected to go to work 3 days per week and work at home 2. If she decides she is not willing to risk the 3 days work, they should not be required to keep paying her. If I quit servicing my customers, I won't get paid. I have the right to stop doing my job, but no right to expect customers to pay me.

I agree that the P5 conferences did not morally have to maintain scholarships for players who choose not to play due to Covid. But I think it was an admirable gesture nonetheless under the circumstances and I applaud them for doing so.

(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."

They are getting protocols that far exceed what the general student population is getting. They are getting the physical training. So, yes, it protects and enhances.
I have teenagers. If you think they are not exposed in the general student population you just don't understand kids that age.

(08-22-2020 08:52 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-22-2020 08:12 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(08-22-2020 08:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 08:04 PM)chester Wrote:  

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

And I certainly don't see any reason to take the decision to participate away from the student-athlete. Frank and other lawyers have said that if their scholarships could be pulled if they choose not to play, the athletes would be under an undue form of pressure that would make their choice to play or not a kind of false one. I disagree, but given that the conferences have in fact taken that form of pressure away by guaranteeing their scholarships, I think it obviously is a fair position to be put in.

I agree student has the right to make a decision to play or not play, I disagree about the school being forced to keep their scholarship in place. They are being given a scholarship and stipends and room n board for playing. My wife works for the county. She is expected to go to work 3 days per week and work at home 2. If she decides she is not willing to risk the 3 days work, they should not be required to keep paying her. If I quit servicing my customers, I won't get paid. I have the right to stop doing my job, but no right to expect customers to pay me.

I see that you are comparing "student-athletes" with people working as employees in a regular paying job.

That is the tricky part here, as colleges still try to pretend these guys are something other than that in reality.

Exactly. That's the last type of comparison the college presidents want to make.

(08-21-2020 10:51 PM)VCE Wrote:  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.

It's belligerent posts like that which demonstrate why America is already hopelessly divided, and will never be able to successfully cope with a pandemic.

(08-19-2020 09:50 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  https://twitter.com/blauds/status/1296093677689995264

It has always been a mistake to conflate decisions about whether to play sports with decisions about how to carry out the academic missions of universities. Those two things are, and should be, unrelated to one another.

(08-22-2020 10:09 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 09:50 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  https://twitter.com/blauds/status/1296093677689995264

It has always been a mistake to conflate decisions about whether to play sports with decisions about how to carry out the academic missions of universities. Those two things are, and should be, unrelated to one another.

They are related, unless to keep FB you completely sever the pretense of student in student athlete. But the dorm outbreaks show how ridiculous that idea is.

This is an existential crisis for schools to continue this path of separating student from student athlete. For the Coaches and others who earn a living off of it, it's like a base closing, a threat to their livelihood no matter the bigger picture. It also exposes their unimportance to the success of the school, which I suppose is an existential threat to the future of their business; they can't let those in charge figure that out.

(08-22-2020 10:21 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(08-22-2020 10:09 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 09:50 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  https://twitter.com/blauds/status/1296093677689995264

It has always been a mistake to conflate decisions about whether to play sports with decisions about how to carry out the academic missions of universities. Those two things are, and should be, unrelated to one another.

They are related, unless to keep FB you completely sever the pretense of student in student athlete. But the dorm outbreaks show how ridiculous that idea is.

This is an existential crisis for schools to continue this path of separating student from student athlete. For the Coaches and others who earn a living off of it, it's like a base closing, a threat to their livelihood no matter the bigger picture. It also exposes their unimportance to the success of the school, which I suppose is an existential threat to the future of their business; they can't let those in charge figure that out.

They are only related in the sense that universities consider sports, especially football and men's basketball, as important fundraising tools. But the university's academic mission does not otherwise depend on having sports, and intercollegiate sports depend only on the pretense of the "student athlete" for their existence.

Playing football does not contribute to dorm outbreaks, and dorm outbreaks need not contribute to the safety or hazards of playing sports. The threat to society as a whole from the decisions of university administrators comes from the irresponsible behavior of college students, whether they are athletes or not. And college students can, as always, be counted on to behave irresponsibly. It's what they do, and anyone who thinks that will change are fooling themselves.

Unless athletes are quarantined (and closely monitored) for the entire duration of their season, including preseason activities, they will contribute to the spread of a virus, just like any other student would. That would be true whether or not their school conducts classes in person or online, or some hybrid.

Self serving statements about whether athletes are "safer on the field than in their dorms", or whether the school is "only concerned about the safety of its student athletes" are intended only to serve as an excuse for doing whatever a given school thinks will piss off one of their constituencies the least and how critical that constituency is to the continued tenure of the administrators..

What the Notre Dame president did is put the onus on curbing the spread on the students.
He told them that it was their duty to be responsible and as some added incentive he was going to take away something from them if they didn't toe the line.
Going to college is a growing experience and a place for young people to learn to live as adults. Notre Dame just reminded it's students how they can be responsible.

(08-22-2020 11:20 AM)XLance Wrote:  What the Notre Dame president did is put the onus on curbing the spread on the students.
He told them that it was their duty to be responsible and as some added incentive he was going to take away something from them if they didn't toe the line.
Going to college is a growing experience and a place for young people to learn to live as adults. Notre Dame just reminded it's students how they can be responsible.

My son expects his campus to shut down in the next month or so. "They're spoiling it for the rest of us."

(08-22-2020 10:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  Self serving statements about whether athletes are "safer on the field than in their dorms", or whether the school is "only concerned about the safety of its student athletes" are intended only to serve as an excuse for doing whatever a given school thinks will piss off one of their constituencies the most and how critical that constituency is to the continued tenure of the administrators..

That's true. Being human, administrators, like all of us, tend to look out for themselves first. So the logical expectation is that they will make the decision that is best for their careers, public image, and legacy. Of course for that very seem reason they will then dress that decision up in altruistic language about doing what's best for X, Y, and Z.

As someone who thinks football should be played, that's my biggest reason I am pessimistic about anyone actually playing: Being in academia, I know that the path of least resistance for admins, the most risk-averse decision for their careers, is to cancel football. I was surprised that once the B1G canceled, the other P5 didn't immediately follow suit.

https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/covid-a.../19247369/

Interesting article shedding some light on the logistics of maintaining social distancing at football stadiums.

(08-22-2020 03:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/covid-a.../19247369/

Interesting article shedding some light on the logistics of maintaining social distancing at football stadiums.

Well even if you can distance IN the stadium, how do you separate the mass of people trying to get through security?

That, to me is the issue with football. The crowds, not the games itself.

(08-22-2020 10:05 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 10:51 PM)VCE Wrote:  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.

It's belligerent posts like that which demonstrate why America is already hopelessly divided, and will never be able to successfully cope with a pandemic.

Calm down, everyone. Drink a shot of Clorox, inject some Lysol, and make an oleander salad. As Americans, it's our God-given right to be stupid.

(08-22-2020 03:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-22-2020 03:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/covid-a.../19247369/

Interesting article shedding some light on the logistics of maintaining social distancing at football stadiums.

Well even if you can distance IN the stadium, how do you separate the mass of people trying to get through security?

That, to me is the issue with football. The crowds, not the games itself.

Spectatorless like the pro sports is the way to go.

You have to wait a year for general vaccine availability (it's about then we can expect it) combined with greater heard immunity (less than 10% now) to really allow fans in. 2022 should be all clear. But in the meantime it's completely irresponsible for politicians to override health officials to allow fans in.

https://www.tmc.edu/coronavirus-updates/...takeaways/
This is a report on Houston. Things are dropping slower than they went up, but after peaking the week of July 6-12, things are back down to mid-June levels.

The reproductive rate is .85, below the 1.0 replacement rate for the 12th day, meaning it is declining. Hospitalization utilitization is down to 97% back in Phase I, no use of extra capacity (which basically doubles ICU capacity).

Seems like this is a similar pattern to many places.

(08-22-2020 04:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.tmc.edu/coronavirus-updates/...takeaways/
This is a report on Houston. Things are dropping slower than they went up, but after peaking the week of July 6-12, things are back down to mid-June levels.

The reproductive rate is .85, below the 1.0 replacement rate for the 12th day, meaning it is declining. Hospitalization utilitization is down to 97% back in Phase I, no use of extra capacity (which basically doubles ICU capacity).

Seems like this is a similar pattern to many places.

Yes, the media hasn't publicized it much, but cases have clearly dropped since late July. So if college admins are looking for improvement, well they are already getting it.