Jump to content
mugtang

We Are United - Mountain West Athletes

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Headbutt said:

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.

We are not too far off on our thinking.  I wouldn't call this a manifesto, but it seems the players want to ensure the entire conference is held to the same standards.  Nothing wrong with that.  I personally don't think it is selfish for someone to say "if I work for you, and get COVID because of working for you, you should cover the initial and subsequent issues directly related to getting it".  That doesn't seem unreasonable, let alone ridiculous.  Again, have a "subject to" or an indemnity clause if it can't be tied to the athletics.  Schools have already shown their selfishness with trying to force waivers of liability, now that is selfish.  Many players would sign it because they want to play ball, but it doesn't make those who are cautious selfish for not wanting to be potentially left out to dry if they catch.  But a verbal agreement or some "of course we will take care of you" line is a risk for the players, and a boon for the schools.  Put it in writing if the schools care.  Negotiate, don't dismiss, and let's play football.  Or not, see how that works out for everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Headbutt said:

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.

The 5 years of medical expenses really is ridiculous. Why should a university pay medical bills 5 years down the road for an athlete getting a virus whose symptoms manifest themselves 2-14 days after contact? Especially when there is no way to prove that athlete contracted the virus during a football activity vs. going out to a bar, being around family....or a protest? Even first responders who test positive face an uphill battle claiming workers comp for COVID because there is no way to prove where the individual contracted the virus. 

The rest of the demands are pretty reasonable and some have already been mandated by the NCAA.

THe 50% of revenue demand by PAC-12 athletes is just a money grab and will have as much success as employees of any company who might make similar demands....especially when so many schools lose money already. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, East Coast Aztec said:

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

 

Speak for yourself.  CSU's new amenities are on par w/many P5 pgms.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

We are not too far off on our thinking.  I wouldn't call this a manifesto, but it seems the players want to ensure the entire conference is held to the same standards.  Nothing wrong with that.  I personally don't think it is selfish for someone to say "if I work for you, and get COVID because of working for you, you should cover the initial and subsequent issues directly related to getting it".  That doesn't seem unreasonable, let alone ridiculous.  Again, have a "subject to" or an indemnity clause if it can't be tied to the athletics.  Schools have already shown their selfishness with trying to force waivers of liability, now that is selfish.  Many players would sign it because they want to play ball, but it doesn't make those who are cautious selfish for not wanting to be potentially left out to dry if they catch.  But a verbal agreement or some "of course we will take care of you" line is a risk for the players, and a boon for the schools.  Put it in writing if the schools care.  Negotiate, don't dismiss, and let's play football.  Or not, see how that works out for everyone.

OK.  So any "waiver of liability" has limits.  I know an attorney that laughs at the concept.  However, it's still a necessary document.  You and I should have to waiver liability for Covid just to enter a stadium.  If a player can show negligence, then the waiver is void anyway.  However, without one, it's almost impossible to proceed with the sport.  If they're not already signing a waiver, sans Covid, then somebody is completely missing the ball.  You just cannot offer someone an opportunity to take an obvious risk for a defined benefit without getting that waiver signed.  Just how it works.

My biggest problem with the document is that it demands that things be done per NCAA protocols.  Ummm, really.  Is any team continuing with football if they can't meet NCAA protocols.  The document assumes that schools are anticipating carrying out practices that don't have player safety in mind.  Just which AD in this country is that stupid??

I think pride will matter here.  AD's will not want to be forced to do something by athletes, anything.  The relevant athletes will want to win this battle.  They're both fighting for the same thing, but neither will want to be the loser.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No public university would or should agree to being liable for all COVID-19 medical expenses for 5 years after exhaustion of eligibility.  I understand the athletes concerns but with the unknowns of if or what the long-term effects of COVID-19 might be and the difficulty in determining exactly when/where a player was infected (especially with athletes not in a bubble and when testing only once per week) makes this irresponsible for a publicly funded university to agree to.  It's becoming increasingly unlikely that there will be ncaa sports this fall.  At this point I'm fine with that.  I will not insist players play and I will not insist public universities be liable.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t blame the players for being proactive about their health. Thompson and the ADs aren’t thinking of the kids, they’re thinking of the money they are losing. Fans pushing for a season are being selfish. 

This is stupid. The school presidents need to take control. Shut it down immediately.  Honor the kids scholarships (although you don’t have to)  and call it good until next fall. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NorthWestCowboy said:

No public university would or should agree to being liable for all COVID-19 medical expenses for 5 years after exhaustion of eligibility.  I understand the athletes concerns but with the unknowns of if or what the long-term effects of COVID-19 might be and the difficulty in determining exactly when/where a player was infected (especially with athletes not in a bubble and when testing only once per week) makes this irresponsible for a publicly funded university to agree to.  It's becoming increasingly unlikely that there will be ncaa sports this fall.  At this point I'm fine with that.  I will not insist players play and I will not insist public universities be liable.

Right but those same unknowns apply to the players who are putting themselves at greater risk.   So who should bear that burden?  The school getting financial benefit or the players?

  • Cheers 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

I can’t blame the players for being proactive about their health. Thompson and the ADs aren’t thinking of the kids, they’re thinking of the money they are losing. 

This is stupid. The school presidents need to take control. Shut it down immediately.  Honor the kids scholarships (although you don’t have to)  and call it good until next fall. 

I think that is fair on both sides, and essentially why I agree with what the student athletes are doing.  I honestly don't think the risk is worth it.  And I say that as an avid fan of collegiate athletics. 

 

Pros?  Don't care, they make tons of money.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, GoState99755 said:

 

Speak for yourself.  CSU's new amenities are on par w/many P5 pgms.

 

Maybe the Wazzu's of the world.  CSU isn't holding a candle to the lion's share of P5 programs.  CSU is IKEA trying to say they are on par with Restoration Hardware or better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Football is a contact sport. What the hell are people thinking? These kids are going to be unnecessarily exposed. Long term health of players is at stake. It’s time for someone with common sense to step forward and stop this nonsense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Right but those same unknowns apply to the players who are putting themselves at greater risk.   So who should bear that burden?  The school getting financial benefit or the players?

Which is exactly why I said the season will likely be cancelled.  I don't expect either party to do something they are not confident or comfortable in doing.  Cancel the season, honor the scholarships and let the athletes and universities focus on the core misson of education during this period of uncertainty.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, NorthWestCowboy said:

Which is exactly why I said the season will likely be cancelled.  I don't expect either party to do something they are not confident or comfortable in doing.  Cancel the season, honor the scholarships and let the athletes and universities focus on the core misson of education during this period of uncertainty.

Yeah that is fine but if the school wants them to play it should bear the risk.  Now counter to that the school should also be allowed to put them in an on-campus bubble with minimal outside contact to lessen the party problem.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

Football is a contact sport. What the hell are people thinking? These kids are going to be unnecessarily exposed. Long term health of players is at stake. It’s time for someone with common sense to step forward and stop this nonsense. 

Football is also a sport where “toughness” reigns supreme so not a surprise many are playing.   Quite frankly given what football can do to your body, I’m shocked more players 5’ 7” - 6’ 0” and fast don’t opt for soccer.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Football is also a sport where “toughness” reigns supreme so not a surprise many are playing.   Quite frankly given what football can do to your body, I’m shocked more players 5’ 7” - 6’ 0” and fast don’t opt for soccer.   

 

They are, high school football is way down nationally. Basketball is taking its share too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JoeBlo said:

 

They are, high school football is way down nationally. Basketball is taking its share too.

Interesting.  I wonder if that is true in poor black communities or is it just down among white suburban kids.   Given the economics of being a running back versus a wing in soccer it’s not just the injury risk that weighs heavily in soccers favor, the financial rewards are much better in soccer.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Slapdad said:

The 5 years of medical expenses really is ridiculous. Why should a university pay medical bills 5 years down the road for an athlete getting a virus whose symptoms manifest themselves 2-14 days after contact?

With a hospitalization rate of 50 per 100,000 in the 19-29 year age group, why not just give it to them?  Very few players will have serious long-term issues related to Covid that will need treatment 5-years down the road. I've only heard of one player so far having a serious case requiring a visit to the hospital and follow-up treatment (IU's Brady Feeney).  His mom posted on Facebook how he could have long-term heart issues (being 325 pounds as an 18 year old probably isn't the most healthy life choice either).

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

With a hospitalization rate of 50 per 100,000 in the 19-29 year age group, why not just give it to them?  Very few players will have serious long-term issues related to Covid that will need treatment 5-years down the road. I've only heard of one player so far having a serious case requiring a visit to the hospital and follow-up treatment (IU's Brady Feeney).  His mom posted on Facebook how he could have long-term heart issues (being 325 pounds as an 18 year old probably isn't the most healthy life choice either).

 

The same reason that any employer doesn’t cover medical expenses for former employers for five years after they’ve left a job. Medical expenses are expensive for starters. Second, why should a school be on the hook for those costs once a player leaves....the player could be out acting irresponsibly (going to bars, concerts, etc), contract the virus and the schools would be on the hook for it. The players have won the ability make money on their likeness (something I think a very small percentage will actually be able to do, but a large percentage think they’ll be able to do), so let them use that “windfall” to pay it. In fact, I’m of the opinion that college students should get a 1099 for the amount of their scholarship, support charges, food and rent and pay taxes on it since they want to be treated like employees instead of students. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

Interesting.  I wonder if that is true in poor black communities or is it just down among white suburban kids.   Given the economics of being a running back versus a wing in soccer it’s not just the injury risk that weighs heavily in soccers favor, the financial rewards are much better in soccer.  

 

 

Soccer is pay to play, that's where your suburb kid is going. Basketball is cheap, courts are everywhere, that's where the poorer kids are heading. 

 

Football remains strong in Ohio, Florida, Texas, and Michigan, but it is slumping almost everywhere else. It's even having issues in places like Texas where smaller schools are struggling to get teams together, even for eight man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...