|
Post by namssa on Aug 2, 2020 12:53:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by tonatiuh on Aug 2, 2020 13:55:24 GMT -8
You mean they do wish to boycott as opposed to..."not to boycott...".
It is a very demanding letter, but doesn't this belong on the "OTHER Colleges & Conferences" board, and not here?
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on Aug 2, 2020 15:56:02 GMT -8
You mean they do wish to boycott as opposed to..."not to boycott...". It is a very demanding letter, but doesn't this belong on the "OTHER Colleges & Conferences" board, and not here? Except this is causing ripples throughout the college football world. I was listening to the ESPN guys talking about this and debating whether the pandemic might lead to something of a player's union for college football.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfred on Aug 2, 2020 16:32:23 GMT -8
You mean they do wish to boycott as opposed to..."not to boycott...". It is a very demanding letter, but doesn't this belong on the "OTHER Colleges & Conferences" board, and not here? Except this is causing ripples throughout the college football world. I was listening to the ESPN guys talking about this and debating whether the pandemic might lead to something of a player's union for college football. Or death of college football?
|
|
|
Post by Sdsu4life on Aug 2, 2020 16:37:45 GMT -8
You mean they do wish to boycott as opposed to..."not to boycott...". It is a very demanding letter, but doesn't this belong on the "OTHER Colleges & Conferences" board, and not here?No, it does not. It is very much on topic for this forum.
|
|
|
Post by neogeoaztec on Aug 2, 2020 17:03:33 GMT -8
This seems like it will lead into a Title IX discussion. Good luck Pac12
|
|
|
Post by fisher1fan on Aug 2, 2020 17:21:46 GMT -8
You mean they do wish to boycott as opposed to..."not to boycott...". It is a very demanding letter, but doesn't this belong on the "OTHER Colleges & Conferences" board, and not here? Technically I’d agree, but like other topics discussed outside of these guidelines....there is basically nothing of interest to discuss
|
|
|
Post by DeeMoney on Aug 2, 2020 19:41:57 GMT -8
I'm all for groups organizing and getting what they can/believe they deserve, but I'm also for those who are in position to distribute the wealth to tell that group to 'go pound sand' if they believe the request isnt worth what is provided. I think the 50% distributed to the athletes within the sport is a point that won't be given in on. It would KILL other sports and athletic departments as a whole.
Moreover, I know there are a large number of athletes who are one rung down the ladder (FBS/G5), whose talent level would be almost indecipherable if they are just playing against each other (vs each other). And a lot of those guys would be dying to have a shot to get their education paid for and play big time football.
I think the idea of providing long term health care for student athletes is brilliant though, and warranted.
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Aug 2, 2020 19:56:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Aug 2, 2020 21:22:28 GMT -8
Ahhhh. Inmates running the asylum.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuballer on Aug 2, 2020 21:49:11 GMT -8
Another blow to the PAC 12.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 2, 2020 23:04:00 GMT -8
This was completely inaccurate. First, nobody has been released from the team. A player opted out due to health concerns (he apparently has sickle cell anemia) and was told since he's opting out he can't participate in team activities. That's what opting out means. He was told he could stay on scholarship and finish the year, and that next year is unknown (like with all scholarships). The dad went haywire and tweeted false info, and some morons on ESPN are jumping in without fact checking. He was never cut. Any player who opts out because they fear C19 should not be involved with team workouts and practices. Duh.
|
|
|
Post by namssa on Aug 3, 2020 7:06:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by RiffelBooks on Aug 3, 2020 7:29:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aztecking on Aug 3, 2020 7:40:52 GMT -8
Many of the demands centered around COVID-19 safety. Zeigler was a COVID-hoaxer from the start so take any of his opinions about the pandemic with a major grain of salt.
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Aug 3, 2020 7:49:59 GMT -8
I think it's fine if player want to opt out of the season if they think it's unsafe. The other demands are a no go.
|
|
|
Post by Frantic on Aug 3, 2020 8:12:08 GMT -8
Many of the demands centered around COVID-19 safety. Zeigler was a COVID-hoaxer from the start so take any of his opinions about the pandemic with a major grain of salt. If you read the article, you will see Zeigler focuses on the money angle (scholarships, revenue sharing, endorsements, Title IX, etc.) and not COVID safety issues.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 3, 2020 9:33:24 GMT -8
Many of the demands centered around COVID-19 safety. Zeigler was a COVID-hoaxer from the start so take any of his opinions about the pandemic with a major grain of salt. Actually very few of their demands center around C19 safety. They're basically just seeking to not lose a year of eligibility if they opt-out, and the P12 must hire a 3rd party the players recommend to assess safety protocols. By far most are financially based, starting with seeking 50% of the conference reference going to players. Ziegler is right on with his assessment.
|
|
|
Post by DeeMoney on Aug 3, 2020 11:48:12 GMT -8
For a head coach, its a tough place to be in. Even if you want the players to succeed, you have a duty to tell them that there is a chance that the Pac-12 may not give in to their demands, forcing them to either give up or step away from the team. Now the HC has a lot of tasks, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking winning isnt one of them (if not the biggest one of them). As such, a coach has to consider whether or not he is better off getting rid of a player who is possibly sitting out in favor of someone who could contribute to winning.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 3, 2020 12:18:07 GMT -8
For a head coach, its a tough place to be in. Even if you want the players to succeed, you have a duty to tell them that there is a chance that the Pac-12 may not give in to their demands, forcing them to either give up or step away from the team. Now the HC has a lot of tasks, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking winning isnt one of them (if not the biggest one of them). As such, a coach has to consider whether or not he is better off getting rid of a player who is possibly sitting out in favor of someone who could contribute to winning. Correct. He's not doing anything to the players who are involved with the Unity pact. They remain with the team. Only those who opting out for safety reasons are being asked to stay away from the team for those same safety reasons. However, if that group does in fact decide to "opt out" or boycott, then things may change. If they opt out this year then obviously they'll be relieved of their duties with the team. Players who stay around & make an impact obviously could improve their standing with the team to the point they jump the others when spring ball starts. But that assumes those who opt out because their demands weren't met are coming back. If their demands aren't met, and they continue to opt-out as a result, then obviously there's no way a coach can guarantee his scholarship next year. Most people realize not all the demands will be met. What Rolo or anyone else doesn't know is what these kids will actually do if their demands aren't met. Therefore he has no idea what their status will be moving forward. That's what he was telling Kassidy (who BTW was illegally recording the conversation for distribution). If opting out of COVID-19, given sickle cell, I get it. If those guys (unity pact) opt out down the road because their demands aren't met - no guarantees. Coaches have to go with the guys who want to be here.
|
|