I need to see what timeline they're floating out there for spring football. Because I assume they're talking about playing from late-Feb thru early-May.
Apparently it sounds like it's mostly about liability. If that's the case I don't see why they can't just give kids the option as you mentioned. If they opt to play have them and their parents sign some type of liability waiver. I know I'm probably over-simplifying it but that seems like a viable option. Kinda reminds me of what we went through with football and brain injuries a few years back. Players were provided the information then made the decision that was best for them.Just let the players play if they want to. IF they don't then let them have a free redshirt year. This whole thing has become stupid. Letting college players play football isn't going to hurt anyone except a player or staff member who gets sick. And the players know the risk if they want to play. Hell some of those people are still going to get sick without the football. It's crazy to me that some think you can just have everyone shelter in a bubble and the virus will just go away.
That is why if there is a spring season, I don't see the reason to even have a full ten games. Make it to what is best for the athletes.I need to see what timeline they're floating out there for spring football. Because I assume they're talking about playing from late-Feb thru early-May.
That seems crazy as hell to ask players to play a full 10 game season then in roughly two months ramp up training for the fall season. Seems like they'd need at least 3 months for their bodies to fully heal from the previous season.
The NCAA already said hell no to waivers of any sort.Apparently it sounds like it's mostly about liability. If that's the case I don't see why they can't just give kids the option as you mentioned. If they opt to play have them and their parents sign some type of liability waiver. I know I'm probably over-simplifying it but that seems like a viable option. Kinda reminds me of what we went through with football and brain injuries a few years back. Players were provided the information then made the decision that was best for them.
Also, from what I've been seeing some of the big conferences like the SEC, players are being allowed to maintain their scholarship even if they opt out.
I still think it comes down to public relations though. I think that's a big part of what's driving their decision.
My guess would be this is all talk to mitigate the outrage. I can't even imagine that they would attempt a spring season immediately followed by prep for fall.I need to see what timeline they're floating out there for spring football. Because I assume they're talking about playing from late-Feb thru early-May.
That seems crazy as hell to ask players to play a full 10 game season then in roughly two months ramp up training for the fall season. Seems like they'd need at least 3 months for their bodies to fully heal from the previous season.
Well that answers that.The NCAA already said hell no to waivers of any sort.
I'm not sure of their reasoning. But, when they put out notice, it was not presented as being negotiable.Well that answers that.
Do you have any idea why it's off the table?
I said “really haven’t”. And, it also means that you haven’t done shit in over a decade.Someone is forgetting 2008 when we were one loss away from playing for a national championship.
How about you stay in your lane?
I love how they say NCAA Athletes. As though the women's gymnatics team needs to get paid while the school is losing money on the program. You'd end up with schools cutting everything that isn't profitable enough to pay the athletes.
Exactly. Basically only football and basketball make money for colleges. And not both for every school.I love how they say NCAA Athletes. As though the women's gymnatics team needs to get paid while the school is losing money on the program. You'd end up with schools cutting everything that isn't profitable enough to pay the athletes.
How about you stay in your lane?