OSU may be the MBOC for football but is an equal in the areas that count. Leaving the B1G would be a net loss for OSU.
Doesn't HIPPA apply to healthcare facilities and providers insurance providers, but not employers not in the healthcare delivery business?
So, since the schools are trying to be SAFER with the players, it makes them MORE liable in a court of law?
IINAL, but it seems to me if you claim to do X, and it turns out you didn't and someone is injured then you might be held liable because you did not do what you said.
I say this based on discussions I've had with lawyers over the years. For example, when we were doing an event our lawyer advised use to charge separately for power connections. That way, if a vendor lost power we could limit any liability to what we charged for a power feed if the vendor claimed it was our fault and as a result suffered damages. Is football similar? I don't know. A case could be made either way, which is why we have lawyers and courts.
To me the question is is the liability risk worth the benefits of football? That is one consideration when making the decision to play or postpone.
it should be a "here are the risks, it's your choice" situation, as you say it is for the students.'
The optics of that, when a player gets seriously ill, would likely be very bad, in light of all the attention being paid to paying players, etc.
Can be? Twitter makes a cesspool look like a pool at the Oriental. I get a big laugh in my standup when I refer to Dimwitter...
I think we're probably in closer agreement than one might think. As for regular students, to me the main differences is schools aren't claiming to take extra precautions to isolate students. It'sd more of a "here are the risks, it's you choice" than providing a more secure bubble, IMHO.
Unfortunately for the players, schools need to look at the long term impact on their liability as well as health of the players, not just on the basis of can we get through the season.
As I understand it, part of the reason appears to be Marc Jacob's attempt to trade mark "The" for clothing and thus THE OSU decided to protect their right to use "THE" on clothing. If Marc Jacobs gets a trademark on "The" then OSU will have to license it or stop selling merchandise with "The" on it.
Where I am schools that opened up are starting to shut down again due to outbreaks.
I get your personal responsibility point, but to me another thing to consider is the argument that schools can isolate the players to avoid getting infected. The challenges of that aside, if a school takes that position they are basically saying "we can keep you safe because you will be in a bubble." At that point, IMHO, they've taken responsibility for any infections, even if they follow all the guidance. I'm willing to bet there will be times they fail to follow the guidance, even by accident, and thus be accused of inadequate actions and possibly negligence.
Why take on that risk?
Exactly. I have friends that like to use it as an example of frivolous lawsuits but when I ask them about some of the details they have no idea what actually happened, only that an old lady bough coffee at McD's. put it between her legs, drove off an git burned so she sued and collected millions.
Again it may change, but what did the B10 have to lose waiting?
At some point, the uncertainty weighs on people. It sucks that there is no season, but at least now you can plan for it. Reservations can get cancelled, alternate vacation plans made, etc. In short, we can move on even if we don't like the decision.
Exactly. Not only did they do that, they knew it was hot enough to cause severe burned based on internal analysis and having customers get burned. In the case often mentioned, the lady was a passenger in a parked card and initially only asked McD's to cover her hospital bill. McD's said no and she sued.
If it was truly about liability then explain to me how high school football is on track to play?
One factor may be that high school football is very much locally controlled. School boards are often elected and cancelling football would no doubt impact their reelection chances. If they make a decision that is unpopular they are likely to feel the impact, whether it's via phone calls, emails, being confronted at the grocery store or even protests. Put that up against potential liability that may occur down the road, when if their lucky they will have moved on, and it's a no brainer decision.
IINAL. but the question I would ask is what is the harm to the players if the season is not played? How are they damaged and to what extent? They still have their scholarship and thus get their education; without having to put in the extra time to play football. There is no assurance playing will improve their draft stock, and may actually hurt it. They still can be drafted by the NFL. OTOH, contracting C19 could impact them immediately as well as down the road, creating potential liability for the school; thus from a liability standpoint is seems cancelling is the prudent choice. Of course, a good lawyer can always come up with a reason to sue.
Where I live they're hedging their bets to avoid pissing people off, although at this point no matter what they eventually do half of the people will be pissed. The school district has already said they can't afford the PPE and sanitation protocols for in school learning, face losing a significant amount of teachers that reach retirement eligibility during the school year, and will have 100K+ people log in on day 1 to an online learning system that was marginal just with all the teachers logging in. BTW, it's a new system and the sum of the training was a couple of teams sessions where many of the answers were "I don't know" and the solution is go watch the videos. The only question i show bad will the train wreck be?
I’ve been saying for years OSU should ditch the B1G and go independent. The B1G needs OSU a lot more than we need them. I’m tired of subsidizing and splitting bowl revenue with the “takers” in this conference who refuse to invest money in their program.
Yea, OSU would gladly risk hurting their research grant pipeline for the small amount of revenue football generates in comparison.
Look at the social demographics and tell me if you honestly think that peoiple are ok with cancelling football for Covid. Even with daunting Covid data available, nearly all the states represented in the conference don't even require masks. There is also going to be insane political pressure to keep football. Much more so than the states represented in the other conferences.
Good point. A lot of the folks I know are convinced C19 is just a sham made up to help Biden win. About half the parents are pushing for schools to fully open even after there have been C19 outbreaks in schools. It will be interesting to see how it plays out; especially iif a school has an outbreak and winds up having to cancel or play with 3rd stringers.
OTOH, Walmart requires masks and after all the "I'll never shop there again" rants people seem to be coming back and wering masks.
Looks sound on paper...but counter our parents group was ignored as to their wishes to play.
I have no idea what transpired, but I'd be surprised if parents weren't explained why the decision was made. Some will agree and some won't.
Ignored by a non-football conference. A 16-17 year old won't give much weight to that at all: Remember they are going to live forever at that age. The best players will gravitate away from a non-football conference once it has been exposed.
I don't get how all of a sudden the B1G is a non-football conference. Sure, a few players may be swayed but a 16-17 year old has a short memory and when he sees schools like OSU, USC, et. al. putting players in the NFL and having high draft picks what happened a year or more ago will be forgotten except by coaches who think it's a good negative recruiting pitch.
This hasn't played out to the end yet, either. This could very well just be the first domino for the P5.
Correct. They are also the only team undefeated vs ND. Go Maroons.
They didn't. They gave their opinions and then the folks in charge of B1G sports weighed their options and made a decision.
If that were to happen more than likely the B1G would either be excluded by the rest of the conferences or choose to stay under NCAA jurisdiction. The B1G is pretty much the red-headed stepchild in the eyes of the other P5 conferences now.
TL;DR: In the end, if it were to happen, money will drive it and it'll be all or none.
While I think breaking away is unlikely, should a serious effort be made I have no doubt the B1G would be deeply involved. The money and national brand is too big to ignore. If you count the B1G Ten out because it cancelled sports, you'd have to count out the Pac-12 as well. Right there you are leaving out two of the biggest media markets in the country, as well as a national brands.
If such a split were to happen, I'd lay money on the B1G and Pac-12 looking to expand and bring in teams that may not be happy playing second fiddle to the SEC. ND could even jump in as an independent and keep most, if not all, of their traditional games. Done right, you could have Pac-12 Coastal and Mountain divisions, and B1G Midwest and Southeastern divisions. Each division has a championship game, and the division champions play each other and the two winners play the championship game; resulting in an 8 - 4 - 2 playoff setup.
You'd wind up with 2 national champions every year, and depending on what happens with realignment the breakaway conferences could very well wind up a predominantly regional southeast league.
The B1G / PAC-12 could schedule marquee games between themselves, much like the Pac-12 B1G had planned to do before realignment. In addition, they could still schedule other NCAA teams in the MAC, etc. The season could start with OSU - UT, USC - UM, ND - PSU , followed by non-P5 team games an 2020-08-12hen OSU - USC, UM - ND, PSU - OU, The TV revenue could be significant for such matchups and since wining your conference is what counts there is no downside if you lose.
In the end, if it were to happen, money will drive it and it'll be all or none.
Another aspect to what's happening is it puts a lie to the idea the Power5 could break away from the NCAA and form their own association. If they can't come to some sort of mutual agreement in today's situation and are jjockeying for position, how could they come to agree on splitting up the spoils from a new association?
I would guess one counter to negative recruiting would be to point out to parents that they did this, despite wanting to play, because the felt it unduly risked their players and staff's health.
Ask a parent if they want their kid to play somewhere that would risk their kid's health to make money? What would they do if he gets injured? Shoot him up and send him out? Kick hime\ to the curb?
As much as we wanted to play, we had to make decisions with the best interests of our players number one. We care about them now and where they'll be 40 years from now.
That sounds like you never played sports, at least football. Young adults, who lack advanced maturity, are FAR more likely to listen to their coach who can dictate whether they play or not than a parent
Actually, I have, at the HS Varsity level, though real football with a round ball. While coach certainly had impact what my parents did was far more significant. My experience was my teammates were far more likely to do stuff coach wouldn't approve of, despite that we all loved and respected our coach.
Bringing them back while other students do not come back reinforces their position that the primary reason they are there is to generate revenue by playing football, not to get a degree. At that point, you might as well forget the whole student athlete model.
They're college kids, and athletes on top of that. A feeling of invincibility coupled with desire pretty much assures some, even if not all, will break the rules sooner rather than later. As a result, all you've done is add to the risk while you think you have eliminated or greatly reduced it.
Sure, liability is a big issue to consider but part of that is not exposing the players, coaches, etc. to a an unnecessary risk even if there was no liability. As much as I want to go to the games this year if the season is cancelled the sun will still rise the next day.
Uh, no. This is a post arguing it's safer than sending these kids away where theyll still party, theyll work out god knows where, eat who knows what, and be completely unmonitored.
There is also no evidence that those inclined to do so will not do so if monitored. Speaking from experience, if you want to do something you'll find a way, despite restrictions to the contrary. A parent, in most cases, is probably better positioned to control behavior than a coach or school.
With testing athletes may get a false sense that they are 100% safe and thus engage in risky behavior, in which case you've actually increased their risk.
There is ZERO evidence that canceling is safer. Your argument is 'Out of sight. Out of mind.'
There is also no evidence it is safer.
I would guess it comes down to is C19 a force majeure? That would eliminate many of the contractual concerns. The players would have, in my non lawyer opinion, much less of a claim since there is no guarantee they would play and they aren't prevented from showcasing their talents elsewhere should a team want a workout for draft analysis. Ticketholders get their money back - no loss to them.
What I find interesting is how Day, essentially a newcomer to the head coaching/recruiting ranks, is going toe to toe with much more established and recognizable names. Sure, being at OSU helps, but there are other coaches with longer and more impressive pedigrees that aren't close to the same level of performance.
To be honest, show of hands how many though recruiting would take it when Urban left?
How many at (insert school name here) though they'd be killing it when (insert coach name here) was hired?