They’re going to be federal cases with appeals going way further than a single jury.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
2020 CU football season POSTPONED until Nov 6th?
- Thread starter Jens1893
- Start date
GuySmiley
Don't Drink the Kool-Aid
That really does not matter that much, you get a Federal Court in Texas, Alabama, Georgia or Florida... If it were a CU athlete, I'd want a Boulder rather than a Denver Metro jury. Appeals numbers are rarely included in a risk assessment, since appeals are rarely granted. Also, the elements that I listed are all findings of fact by a jury, that are not even really reviewable on appeal. In some ways Federal civil cases are easier to defend with the rocket docket, immediate discovery, and some hard-ass judges/magistrates.
The best case for a plaintiff would be one where there client was coerced into playing... That is tough given that the NCAA has given an iron clad opt-out option for student athletes. Again, I suppose there may be a set of facts where this occurs... we shall see.
Again, the cases are going to get appealed. Who decides those cases?
GuySmiley
Don't Drink the Kool-Aid
That would be whatever Federal Circuit the case is decided... Or in State Court, it would be the State Court of Appeals. You would be there on errors of law, not findings of fact.
Yep to your closing thought.The Athletic interviews the Cardiologist who is advising the B12 today (paywall).
Q&A: One cardiologist’s reasoning on why myocarditis shouldn’t delay seasons
Michael Ackerman advised conference and school officials from the Big 12 it would be safe to proceed amid the virus.theathletic.com
I read the piece and while he tries to describe other leagues as being alarmists, it honestly just cemented my opinion that the P12 is doing the right thing.
Basically, you have no data that states it's 100% safe to proceed and be able to control the virus, and what the outcomes will be for those who survive contracting the virus (long term heart problems being the biggest concern). He makes the point that we just don't know.
So "if we just don't know", it seems that the NFL can make a decision, but I'd expect the leading Academic Institutions in the world to make a much more conservative decision, which they've done. Partly, because they are Academic Institutions, not Pro Football leagues (primarily) and second because the players aren't really being paid, they are getting just a free education.
So the answer really lies in what is the mission? In the SEC, it's football. In the PAC12, it's higher education first. Simple.
For example, if the courts said that to keep amateur status that schools would need to adopt the Ivy model -- otherwise they'd need to spin off their ADs as professional sports businesses...
The AAU members would go amateur Ivy while the rest would go pro. That's why the B1G & P12 are going the way they are while ACC members are split and the SEC/Big 12 are determined to play.
Likewise, if you put it to a vote of the citizenry of states that they either had to disband the university or the AD, it's basically the AAU members whose states would pick keeping the education part.
No. It's all about where you get your news from. In locations where the majority of people are getting their "information" from Fox News, they believe that this is a great over-reaction.
If you allow science to guide your opinions, then you make the decisions that the PAC12 made.
It's not politics. It's education.
You can't seriously believe the SEC, ACC and Big 12 are making their decisions based on Fox News. Come on, man.
letsgoavs192
I support systemic racism
Because if they decide to play nothing says every player has to play. They should and will be able to opt out.
Also, willing to bet (we will never get factual info on this so no way to check it) that the conferences that DON'T play end up with more covid cases than those that DO play.
On those talking points? Yes, they are. Just as they elect state & local leaders based on the same set of information.
In this case, everyone wants to have sports. They're fun entertainment that has a huge economic impact. Not easy to give that up. And why would you give it up if your info sources are telling you that the risk is about the same as the flu?
My questions come down to liability. You are suggesting that granting players the ability to opt out absolves the schools and conferences of liability. Others have stated that won't be the case. My questions on this are all about the murkiness surrounding liability and if the SEC/ACC/Big 12 believe liability won't be an issue, why would BIG and Pac 12 believe it would be? If the SEC/ACC/Big 12 believe liability could be an issue, do they simply not give about the impending lawsuits?
Because they are consulting medical experts who are smarter, more competent individuals than to base their decision on Sean Hannity and Clay Travis telling them it's the same as the flu.
GuySmiley
Don't Drink the Kool-Aid
I think rather than just liability, it more so comes down to politics. I think possible liability is an excuse, rather than the driving force behind a decision. Safely playing football in the fall is probably a 50%/50% endeavor; and barring a vaccine, I am not sure that the %'s change drastically in the Spring, except that CoVid fatigue probably moves more people in support of playing.
The Governors have plenty of say, and their approach in handling CoVid has varied across the entire nation. I believe for education in each state, although the school presidents/regents have some clout, I think that the Governor probably has the final say. If Governor Newsome said no football for UC schools then that pretty much speaks for four PAC schools, as Stanford and USC are not going to rock the boat. Same for Governor Inslee and the Washington schools. Also, Kate Brown in Oregon. Overall, I think the West Coast Governors have pretty much been in lock-step throughout with their approach through the pandemic.
The B1G schools although facing different levels of CoVid outbreaks, may have Governors that would go either way, but they probably came upon their decision the same way. IMO, if you are playing football, your Governor has to be 100% on board, or it is unlikely to happen. I would not want to be a college president at logger-heads with my Governor.
I thought that FoxNews quip was outlandish, but I think that it does have some validity. Depending on where you get news, there is a difference in risk aversion or acceptance and explaining the overall CoVid outlook is very different. I don't think that ties into overall legal liability, but it certainly impacts public perception.
Just like the tobacco industry had medical experts who said the data was inconclusive and there was no proof that smoking is bad for you.
Don't think medical folks can't be bought who will find a way to support the conclusion you want.
Last edited:
GuySmiley
Don't Drink the Kool-Aid
I agree with your point on medical experts, there will always be conflicting studies out there and you can most always pay an expert for the outcome that you seek. However, tobacco w/ big business may not be a good analog for college football. With CoVid most all of the studies have been changing and conflicting to different degrees, not necessarily just because of a certain economic or big business bias, but because CoVid has been such a tough nut to crack. There are still so many unknowns-- one of those unknowns is how much risk is or is not acceptable for a certain activity.
How does this reconcile with the liability issue, though? Are you saying the medical professionals in the South are reaching different conclusions than those in the North and West because they were bought, which is then going to absolve the SEC, ACC, and Big 12 of liability?
From my view, I’m seeing those commissioners looking at only the political wishes of the people in their areas. Expert medical advice has been lacking.
realize this is of limited interest, but may be for anyone wondering how other schools are managing season ticket holders (screen shot from an email from the VT AD).
The rubbing point is that to maintain your status, you have to take option 1 or 2. they'll give you a refund, but you lose your status.
I read that Penn State's policy is, if you take the refund, you lose both your seats for 2021 and your parking pass option. Clemson is reportedly offering a "redshirt year"
The rubbing point is that to maintain your status, you have to take option 1 or 2. they'll give you a refund, but you lose your status.
I read that Penn State's policy is, if you take the refund, you lose both your seats for 2021 and your parking pass option. Clemson is reportedly offering a "redshirt year"
There's nothing to reconcile. It's a financial and political risk/reward/cost decision. The SEC is willing to take a lot more risk for the reward of having a season in consideration of how costly it would be not to have one. The P12 weighs it differently - closer to how the Ivy looks at it.
It's absurd obviously, but he can - this is what happens when you view all of life thru a political lens. You think everyone else does, too.
TBH, I wouldn't have seriously thought that the President of the United States would make decisions based on Fox News either. Life is full of surprises.
somebody
Well-Known Member
1. Fewer sick student athletes.
2. Who knows?
They've already said "no refunds". The important point for UNC is that it's too late now to be practical for most of the students to transfer. all they needed was one week.
It only works if you leave them no option.
I believe this country is divided into 2. I believe that if we got our news from Walter Cronkite like we did when I was a kid, we'd all be on the same page on this issue.
We would believe in science universally.
We would believe that Global Warming is real and man-made.
We would believe that this Virus is NOT a political sham made up by liberals.
Yes, I believe that if the schools in those conferences had informed fan bases, they'd have dropped this idea already.
Oxford and StarkVegas are drawing dead...