Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

We Are United - Mountain West Athletes

Recommended Posts

Most of these are very reasonable demands.  
 

 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bsubroncochick said:

I think the voiding the liability waiver clause is iffy too.  Meaning if they go to a party or on a date and contract COVID they can sue the school?  Doesn’t seem like that would fly.

A "subject to" or indemnity based on evidence of partying and non-athletic or academic event could be in place, but traditionally if a kid got mono, he wouldn't lose anything.  The liability waivers were protecting the schools if they got sick because of practice.  Work with the players to see what is reasonable to allow a floor of personal liberties, and then move on with essentially a practice that is essentially already in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ibanez said:

Shouldn't they be asking for 50% of the revenue? Actually in all seriousness this is actually reasonable and I'm sure the conference/NCAA planned on doing most of these anyway.

50% of the revenue? Does that mean the players would have to pay San Jose St to play?

Disclaimer: Any views or opinions presented by this poster (Warbow) are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Univesity of Hawaii or it's loyal fans. All quotes and opinions from Warbow are valid for 30 days following the date of post transmission and are subject to change at any time. All information published herein by Warbow is gathered from his own opinions or sources which are thought to be reliable, but the reader should not assume that the information is official or fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m ok with these depending upon the details of the liability waiver. I’m still thinking the only way this season happens is later after a vaccine not earlier. Expect a later conference only basketball season as well. May Madness Baby!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The comments are funny.  Besides the obvious grammatical error, fans of P5 schools are whining because they think MWC players are asking for too much.  Free Shoes University and R-Kansas fans have a dim perspective, as their players are likely getting paid by boosters and the amenities they enjoy are magnitudes more of a benefit than the 5-years of medical if a MWC player contracts COVID because they played football.  The rich shouting down the middle class, they can go phuck themselves.   Probably still upset from SJSU and BSU giving those two schools the business last year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mugtang said:

These are very reasonable demands.  
 

 

The conference will cancel the season before they agree to pay unlimited medical bills up to 5 years afterward, and boot the liability waiver. That could be mega millions of $. The conference should provide them with high end medical insurance policies, and that’s it. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mugtang said:

These are very reasonable demands.  
 

 

Not really IMO.  Most of these "demands" are already policy.  Banning liability waivers and holding the university liable for five years is ridiculous.  Should that apply to every student?  Should that apply to every business in town.

This is stupid.  It's a case of demanding what you already have, and demanding what cannot be delivered.

I expect better common sense from MWC athletes, or at the least a more aggressive approach to the ridiculous like the P12 got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Headbutt said:

Not really IMO.  Most of these "demands" are already policy.  Banning liability waivers and holding the university liable for five years is ridiculous.  Should that apply to every student?  Should that apply to every business in town.

This is stupid.  It's a case of demanding what you already have, and demanding what cannot be delivered.

I expect better common sense from MWC athletes, or at the least a more aggressive approach to the ridiculous like the P12 got.

Exactly. 👍👍👍👍

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bsubroncochick said:

I think the voiding the liability waiver clause is iffy too.  Meaning if they go to a party or on a date and contract COVID they can sue the school?  Doesn’t seem like that would fly.

Or if a coach is flouting protocols and kids get sick then they can sue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Headbutt said:

Not really IMO.  Most of these "demands" are already policy.  Banning liability waivers and holding the university liable for five years is ridiculous.  Should that apply to every student?  Should that apply to every business in town.

This is stupid.  It's a case of demanding what you already have, and demanding what cannot be delivered.

I expect better common sense from MWC athletes, or at the least a more aggressive approach to the ridiculous like the P12 got.

Is the 50% rule in place now?  Is the hardship waiver in place now?  Is the ban of liability waivers, and a codified prohibition of any retaliation for whistleblowing COVID in place now?  We are telling athletes that unlike "every student" we want you to play ball to make the school money, no more and no less.  And if you are having athletes earn scholarships (and some not even having that) to do more than what "every student" does, is it not reasonable to ask for extra protections?  The question is whether the school wants to take extra precaution to continue to make money off of students, or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What 50% rule?  I saw nothing in their manifesto about a 50% rule.  I'm not sure about a hardship waiver.  If you mean the ability to sit out without losing a scholarship, I believe most teams have endorsed it and it is on the table with the NCAA.  I absolutely oppose a ban of liability waivers, that is just plain stupid, and if you don't like the "whistleblower" policy at your current school, go find a different school.  There are legal protections for any student at any school for "whistleblowing" already (as there should be).  The notion of being able to make a school pay your medical bills for five years is just plain stupid.

CSU, and I guarantee other schools, is right now dealing with a Covid outbreak.  All indications are that it didn't come from football practice.  Why in the hell should CSU be on the hook because a bunch of players decided to have a party??  They were warned of the danger of partying.  What more can you do?

To answer your question, show me the school that isn't taking extra precautions.  The vast majority of these schools are public and operate under the auspices of the state and their health department.  Let's not pretend any school is holding Covid parties and working on herd immunity.  It ain't happening.  It's career suicide for a coach at the very least.

This little manifesto is a freaking joke.  Demanding things they already have, and demanding things that should never happen.  Nothing reasonable in there at all IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Headbutt said:

What 50% rule?  I saw nothing in their manifesto about a 50% rule.  I'm not sure about a hardship waiver.  If you mean the ability to sit out without losing a scholarship, I believe most teams have endorsed it and it is on the table with the NCAA.  I absolutely oppose a ban of liability waivers, that is just plain stupid, and if you don't like the "whistleblower" policy at your current school, go find a different school.  There are legal protections for any student at any school for "whistleblowing" already (as there should be).  The notion of being able to make a school pay your medical bills for five years is just plain stupid.

CSU, and I guarantee other schools, is right now dealing with a Covid outbreak.  All indications are that it didn't come from football practice.  Why in the hell should CSU be on the hook because a bunch of players decided to have a party??  They were warned of the danger of partying.  What more can you do?

To answer your question, show me the school that isn't taking extra precautions.  The vast majority of these schools are public and operate under the auspices of the state and their health department.  Let's not pretend any school is holding Covid parties and working on herd immunity.  It ain't happening.  It's career suicide for a coach at the very least.

This little manifesto is a freaking joke.  Demanding things they already have, and demanding things that should never happen.  Nothing reasonable in there at all IMO.

50% of the season is cancelled due to COVID, hardship waivers can be granted.  And no, there really isn't a codified whistleblower legal protection for COVID.  If you want to players to play, should you not assume the risk if your insistence resulted in them catching COVID?  Read my previous post about indemnifying schools if there is evidence of an athlete contracting COVID due to non-athletic circumstance.  To rebut your answer, if schools are taking precautions, then the entire conference wouldn't have an issue with agreeing to most of the terms, right?  Seems logical, doesn't it?  If you want to quibble about the 5-year or the liability waiver (which is fricking ridiculous), then negotiate it, or just not play football.  To flat out reject it is a joke and shows the unreasonable nature of sports fans and people way too invested in institutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, one piece at a time.  If Covid causes a hardship that disallows a player to perform, whether it be personal or institutional an additional year of eligibility should be granted by the NCAA.  This is already on the table and has overwhelming support.  How the scholarship is handled by the university is a different issue and should be.  I'd suspect that none would be pulled if the NCAA allows a new (temporary) limit, but again I believe that should be up to the university.

There is no specific whistleblower protection tied to Covid, but there are protections in place at public entities, including universities.  Frankly, you don't even need it in this age of social media.  An AD can do the honorable anonymous thing, or get plastered on social media.  I don't believe any of those guys are stupid enough to mess with that, although it should never be automatic.  You can't just go slander a coach because you got moved to third string, but that's a different story.  Protection does exist.

As for Covid risk, you mitigate it to the best of the universities ability.  If that's not good enough for a player, he needs to move on.  Like I said, the BEST of the universities ability.  It's a complete pipe dream to think you can make life Covid risk free for anybody.

I agree that the entire conference should have no issue pointing out that they already comply with most of the demands.  I don't think any team will be on board dealing with them as demands.  That whole manifesto is over the top and it's intent could be accomplished in a much more diplomatic way, probably more successfully.  But kids will be kids.

The 5 year deal or liability waiver is ridiculous.  They shouldn't even be considered.  They just show the selfish nature of whoever is driving this stupid deal.  I agree, if you don't like it then don't play football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...