(This shitclown then proceeds to argue with the other poster over whether 97k have in fact died of covid) Also, apparently chuds have taken to "coronabros" as a thing. Fml.
Well, college football is a uniquely American thing so in unique American style we’ll find some way to fuck it up.
A soccer game was why Bergamo, Italy’s health care system collapsed. Also, at that game several Valencia players and fans became infected and took the virus to Spain.
Can't wait to see how you guys fudge the numbers this time to keep that 100k attendance streak in tact!
I think we could get there, minus the fans part, if we werent championing the opening up of everything and had leaders who would mandate wearing protective clothing, physical distancing, etc. And we probably will get there because enough chuds will be pawns for the entities who stand to lose lots of $, sports outweighs lives. But the world is upside down seeing tweets like this and hoorahs at youth sports returning when you simultaneously see outbreaks amongst Bryant Denny Stadium construction crews. If a construction crew cant get it right, fans in the stands dont stand a chance. We need more Lincoln Rileys and less Joel Klatts.
In all seriousness, it’s going to be complicated enough getting everything in place and safe for games without fans. Adding 10k-50k more variables to it seems to be a recipe for disaster.
UCLAs President Per Chip Kelly on the DP Show last week had a great point. Who here would want to get on a cruise ship right now? because that’s what dorms are, but even worse. Unless it’s safe for all students, I don’t see how you can ask athletes to come to campus if it’s deemed unsafe for the rest of the students.
It would be safer for the athletes If the other students weren’t around, right? So the opposite of what the Michigan president said should be true.
Not a lawyer, but I would think that liability issues would increase for universities if they had athletes living on campus but not students. They would be saying it's not safe for students, but it is for athletes. I guess they could get athletes to sign a waiver?
Depends where you’re at. For example, at Georgia it means less people to sling racial epitaphs at your players, so yeah, they are probably safer in that instance.
Imagine having football players from all across the country being forced to socially distance in a place they aren’t familiar with, with basically no one else around them for support. And, they don’t get paid for this sacrifice. I mean there are highly paid pro athletes saying they don’t want to deal with that shit. It’s criminal to make these kids have to go through this.
The NCAA has been calling these guys student athletes for years now. If the students are forcibly kept off campus and the athletes are forced to come back, that’s done. There is no more legal argument that these guys aren’t employees. And the NCAA’s entire model is broken.
Totally disagree. If the student athletes are allowed back, and no one else is, it doesn’t prove they are employees. It would only prove they are more privileged than a basic student.
It proves conclusively that they aren’t students. The university will have made the decision that it’s unsafe for students to return to school. The university will still have some employees showing up to maintain facilities. Among those employees would be the football players. There’s no argument to call them anything else at that point.
Link to athletes saying this? I guess it's just how our family valued sports growing up, but the 1st bold setion just doesn't make sense to me. Sacrifice? Playing Division I football on scholarship would be the greatest privilege, there are hundreds of thousands of kids who pray for the ability to be able to do this and aren't among the lucky few. Would be an awesome college experience and 20 year-old me would be like "fuck it let's ride, I've only got four years here." Like - my dumb buddies and I could find ways to amuse ourselves and it's not like any of these college towns would be deserted. Bars and restaurants are already opening up. Idk - I just don't get the "making the college players provide slave labor, endangering them" takes. I'd jump at the opportunity. I realize there are different opinions on this, just food for thought
Don't get this logic either because they're given a choice. They have the option to come back when no one else does. These decisions aren't also made in a vacuum. It can be alot safer for 200 players and staffers to be on campus vs 30,000 crammed in to dorms. Makes intuitive sense to me
The students don’t have that choice. That’s the point. They aren’t students at that point. They’re employees that also take classes.
That logical leap you make from choice to students being employees just doesn't make sense. It really doesn't.
If a student athlete refuses to play for fear of their safety do they stay on scholarship? Does their eligibility extend a year?
It absolutely does. “Students, you aren’t allowed on campus this fall. It’s too dangerous.” “Football players, please report to campus, we need the revenue you generate.” Football players are demonstrably not students in this setting.
For players that haven't redshirted, the answer is obviously yes. But yes, the NCAA needs to create some kind of eligibility provision for COVID. Because while most players (I think) want to play, there are some that won't and that should be respected
No, It would prove they are privileged students because they are athletes. They would be doing the same online classes, just like the other students, but they would live on campus, unlike the others.
There's a difference in 200-300 people coming back to campus vs. 30,000. I think you could very well make the reasonable argument players could actually be safe, but having the whole campus back would not be. As long as it's not required, I would personally view it as a privilege. I get to college and fulfill my dream while the rest of you dumb asses have to stay home
Because they aren’t students. They’re employees. Because students aren’t allowed on campus because it’s too dangerous. Employees, on the other hand, have to show up to keep the buildings safe, and keep the online classes going, so that revenue can continue to flow.
It doesn’t matter how you view it. What matters is that a clear line delineating you from the actual students will have been established. You aren’t a student - you’re something else. Legally, that something else is called an employee.
No one is arguing that it wouldn’t be safer for the football players to be on campus alone. That’s just antithetical to the concept of the NCAA and the idea of a student athlete.
Someone explain how you could have even 20% capacity with proper social distancing (6 feet in all directions)
If a player doesn’t feel safe or has an immune system issue they are then under your rule here required to burn their redshirt year with no choice?
AlternativeFacts was in fact arguing that because bringing back all students would potentially be too dangerous, that bringing back athletes would take on the same amount of danger and therefore they're employees Or something like that
Nah I don't think that would be fair. Just saying players who haven't redshirted could the year off without a special provision. I would argue the NCAA should do some kind of COVID waiver so a redshirt wouldn't have to be burned